Shyam Sundar v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11351 of 2023 Applicant :- Shyam Sundar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saumitra Dwivedi,Manish Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶3Heard Sri Saumitra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶4The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.3 of 2020, registered under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C. and 66, 66(C) IT Act, at Police Station-

Cyber

Crime

Prayagraj,

District-Prayagraj/CCHQ/Transhindan

Prayagraj/CCHQ Commissionerate with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶5As per prosecution story, the named accused persons Uday Shankar and Rakesh Maniyar are stated to have duped the informant to the tune of Rs.1,15,448/- on the pretext that the informant shall be given a job in a private company. The said amount was taken on the basis of verification of educational documents.

¶6Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is not named in the FIR and has nothing to do with the said offence. His name has come up later on in the statement of one witness Shekhar Agnihotri who has categorically admitted that there were business transactions between the applicant and his brother Monu Kumar. The said statement is not admissible in evidence and it also does not indicate towards complicity of the applicant in the said crime. The criminal history of four cases assigned to the applicant stands explained vide supplementary affidavit filed in Court today.

¶7Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶8Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶10In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant-Shyam Sundar be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii). that 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;

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶11It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial. Order Date :- 6.11.2023 Vikas [Krishan Pahal, J.] High Court of Judicature at Allahabad