Rajat @ Devendra v. State of U.P

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12097 of 2023 Applicant :- Rajat @ Devendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

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

¶2This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Rajat @ Devendra seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 261 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 171, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Ganganagar, District-Meerut.

¶3The prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that main accused Satya Pal Singh by playing fraud induced several persons on the false pretext of providing employment in the military and grabbed huge amount of money from them. Two of the victims Jitendra Singh and Sunil Kumar were found at the house of the main accused Satya Pal Singh when the police went there and on the basis of their information, the police made a query from main accused Satya Pal Singh, who confessed his guilt before the police. Several incriminating articles were recovered from the house of main accused Satya Pal Singh. The name of present applicant, who is the son of main accused Satya Pal Singh also came on surface on the basis of confessional statement of main accused Satya Pal Singh. FIR was lodged on 11.9.2023 and investigation started, which is going on.

¶4It 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. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is further submitted that although the applicant is the son of main accused Satya Pal Singh but he has absolutely no concern or role in the commission of alleged crime. The name of the present applicant came on surface on the basis of confessional statement of main accused Satya Pal Singh made under police custody. It is further submitted that the family of main accused Satya Pal Singh is very much annoyed and worried for the criminal and fraud acts committed by Satya Pal Singh, the main accused and that is why the present applicant has been expelled by his father from his house and property as well and he has no concern with his father. It is also submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered on the pointing out or from a place under control of the present accused applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant is cooperating with the investigation of the case and criminal history of one solitary case has been explained in the affidavit itself. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶5Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It has been argued that the forged joining letters were being typed on the laptop of the present applicant and his name came into light on the basis of the confessional statement of main accused Satya Pal Singh and as such they are actively involved in the commission of the alleged crime but however, he could not dispute this factual aspect that during investigation no such laptop has been recovered so far.

¶6In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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.

¶7In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶8Considering 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 filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶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 Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer 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 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 Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 16.11.2023 Fhd High Court of Judicature at Allahabad