Kuldeep Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11301 of 2023 Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hemendra Pratap Singh,Anshu Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Kuldeep Singh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 82 of 2004, under Sections 420,467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Pisawah, District Aligarh.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶3It is 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. It is further submitted that during course of investigation no evidence was found against the present applicant and in the charge sheet the I.O. has mentioned that no evidence was found against the present applicant but since he was named in the F.I.R., charge sheet was submitted against him. It is also submitted that earlier the applicant alongwith other co-accused had approached this court through application U/s 482 No. 521 of 2006 and vide order dated

13.1.2006 interim protection was granted to the present applicant but however the trial Court following the directions given in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299, proceeded with the matter and subsequently non-bailable warrant was issued against him. It is also submitted that at present no interim protection is operative in favour of the applicant in the said application u/s 482 CrPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. No process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC has been issued against the applicant and the applicant has not been declared absconder. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶4Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute this factual aspect that in the charge sheet the I.O. of the case has mentioned that no evidence was found against the present applicant but since he was named in the F.I.R. charge sheet was submitted against him.

¶5I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶6It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that informant paid Rs. 60,000/- to the main accused Tarachand Sharma and also to the present applicant and other co-accused Dinesh Kumar for providing some employment in the Military but, however, no employment was provided. F.I.R. was lodged and the police retrieved some forged marksheets, photographs and other incriminating materials from the possession of the main accused Tarachand Sharma. In the statement made before the police by the main accused Tarachand Sharma, the name and role of the present applicant came into light. After investigation charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. It also reveals that the applicant has been cooperative during investigation.

¶7In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that 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, likelihood 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.

¶8Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the end of trial.

¶9The application is allowed accordingly.

¶10In the event of arrest of the applicant, 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 make himself available before the Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial.

(ii) 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

(iii) 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.

¶11In case of default of any of the conditions, the same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 19.10.2023 safi High Court of Judicature at Allahabad