Allahabad High Court
Javed Ahmed vs Central Bureau Of ... on 10 December, 2020
Author: Suneet Kumar
Bench: Suneet Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 2 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4627 of 2020 Applicant :- Javed Ahmed Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation(C.B.I.) Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Sagar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Shiv Sagar Singh and Shri Manish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for CBI and perused the material placed on record.
This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.RC/DST/2018/A/0004 dated 17.1.2018, under section 120B IPC and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(b) and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988, Police Station STF, CBI, New Delhi during the pendency of investigation.
It is urged that pursuant to direction of the Division Bench of this Court at Lucknow in PIL No. 12396 of 2014, an FIR came to be lodged on 30.7.2015 against Yadav Singh and several unknown persons, who were the employees of the NOIDA authority; the applicant is not named in the said FIR; after investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed against the applicant and other accused; it appears that CBI, thereafter, registered the instant FIR dated 17.1.2018; it is alleged that the contracts mentioned in the second FIR were awarded for the period prior to 14.12.2011-23.12.2011 or thereafter; it is also alleged that the contracts were of nominal amount; after investigation the CBI filed chargesheet on 8.6.2020; the applicant is a Private Contractor; applicant is cooperating in the trial pending against him; the passport and other relevant documents of the applicant have been submitted before the court and there is no apprehension of the applicant tampering with the evidence or avoiding the trial. It is urged that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated; it is not a case of custodial interrogation. If the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the anticipatory bail rejection order.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the CBI has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, however he could not dispute the aforesaid facts as have been stated by learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the reasons as stated above, the facts and circumstances of the case as have been discussed at the Bar of this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.
In the event of arrest of the applicant-Javed Ahmed, involved in the aforesaid case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) the applicant will join and participate in each and every aspect of "Investigation" and will lend full assistance to the Investigating Agency even with regard to "discovery of fact" if and when required so by the Investigating Agency or the concerned court;
(ii) the applicant shall make him available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(iii) the applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iv) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
(v) In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/Investigating Officer/first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
(vi) The party shall file computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
(vii) The computer generated copy of the order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
(viii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 6.4.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.), shall also be complied.
The order reads thus:
"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."
Order Date :- 10.12.2020 Mukesh Kr.