Suresh Chand v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8724 of 2023 Applicant :- Suresh Chand Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Md. Nuruddin Khan,Md Zakir Husain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶2The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.83 of 2012, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B, 34 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Jalalpur, District Jaunpur with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶3It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant-accused was working as Block Pramukh but in the year 2004 he was removed from that post by the Government and thereafter he has challenged his removal and he reinstated by the order of the High Court on 17.12.2004.

¶4As per the prosecution version, in scheme of SCRY in the year 2004-05 the public funds provided in the said scheme were misused by way of preparing forged muster roll. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no such allegation that applicant has embezzled any fund or committed any forgery. The amount in the said scheme used to be withdrawn with joint signature of applicant and Block Development Officer. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that there is no credible evidence against the applicant. Further, this case was registered in the year 2012 and the investigation is still going on and charge-sheet has not been submitted. During investigation, the applicant has co-operated with the investigating agency.

¶5It is further submitted that the tenure of applicant as Block Pramukh has elapsed since long time back and now applicant is working as teacher since long. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶6Learned A.G.A has opposed the application and submitted that in implementation of SCRY scheme, funds were misused by the applicant and some Government Officials, by preparing forged muster rolls and by way of committing cheating and forgery. However, it could not be disputed that first information report was registered in the year 2012 and investigation is still going on.

¶7It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶8In the instant case, 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 on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶9The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶10In the event of arrest of the applicant-Suresh Chand 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 Station House Officer of the police station concerned/Court below concerned with the following conditions :-

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

(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/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 7.11.2023/A Gautam High Court of Judicature at Allahabad