Allahabad High Court
Vibhour Bhardwaj vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 July, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:150260 Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6143 of 2023 Applicant :- Vibhour Bhardwaj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vaibhav Kohli Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.
2. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Vibhour Bhardwaj in connection with Case Crime No. 146 of 2017, under sections 420, 406, 506, 120-B, 34 IPC, P.S. Ganga Nagar, District Meerut.
3. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the business transactions between the informant and present applicant along with other co-accused persons took place but proper payment was not made by the accused persons to the informant, which resulted into a huge monitory loss to the informant and F.I.R. was lodged on 26.05.2017 and after investigation, now charge sheet has been submitted into the matter.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.
5. It is further submitted that in respect of the same cause of action, a complaint case was filed on 11.08.2017 before the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, District North: Rohini Courts, Delhi, under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, wherein the applicant and other co-accused persons appeared and a settlement took place between the parties and matter was decided in terms of the settlement by the aforesaid court vide order dated 06.08.2018 and the matter came to an end. It is further submitted that the applicant had no knowledge about the present case and he was under impression that the dispute had been settled before the competent court, Delhi. It is next submitted that he could not appear before the court after filing of the charge sheet and non-bailable warrants and process under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. have been issued against him. It is further submitted that the main grievance in the present F.I.R. to the informant is for non payment of money on the part of the accused persons but since the money is paid to the informant of the matter, which was pending before the trial court, no dispute remains between the parties.
6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that process under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant. It is next submitted that the applicant is defaulter for not complying the order of the court and as such, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail but, however, he could not dispute this fact at the court of Delhi the parties have settled their dispute and the aforesaid dispute relates to the matter in hand.
7. In the present case, although the processes under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. have been issued against the accused applicants but in the light of facts above mentioned and also keeping in view the fact that it may be a case of double jeopardy, the accused applicant seems to be entitled for anticipatory bail.
8. In the case of Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 730, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"12. From these materials and information, it is clear that the present appellant was not available for interrogation and investigation and declared as "absconder". Normally, when the accused is "absconding" and declared as a "proclaimed offender", there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail."
9. The aforesaid dictum of law promulgated by Hon'ble Apex Court helps the applicant in the factual scenario of this case because even if a proclaimed offender is entitled to move anticipatory bail application and if he succeeds to satisfy the court regarding his bona fide as to in what compelling circumstances, he could not appear before the court, the court may consider it and he may be entitled for anticipatory bail and that is why, the word "normally", is significant to such matters.
10. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.
It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.
It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.
11. Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of trial in the matter.
12. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
13. In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-
(i) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 26.7.2023 Shivangi