Surendra @ Goldi Shahgal v. State of U.P

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12507 of 2023 Applicant :- Surendra @ Goldi Shahgal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kaveri Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Heard Sri R.K. Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Kaveri Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.M. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶3The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.0438 of 2023, registered under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC at Police Station-Nandgram, District Ghaziabad with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶4As per prosecution story, the applicant in collusion with the co-accused person Vikas Dagar are stated to have duped the first informant to the tune of Rs.12,50,000/- on the pretext that he shall be selected in State Cricket under-19 team.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is the owner of the academy and the informant used to play there and the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. Learned counsel has further stated that not a single penny has been transferred to the account of the applicant. The allegations against the applicant are that he had taken a cheque worth Rs.50,000/- on 11.02.2020 from the informant. The account details of the applicant have been annexed as annexure no.7 to the affidavit filed with the anticipatory bail application.

¶6Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the amount transferred, if any, is to the account of co-accused person Vikas Dagar who owns a different academy. The allegations against the applicant are that he had introduced the informant to Vikas Dagar also. The said allegations are vague. Earlier on, the applicant was granted interim protection by the Sessions Court, but subsequently it was rejected. Several 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. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for 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.

¶7Per 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.

¶8On 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.

¶9In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant-Surendra @ Goldi Shahgal be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal 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.

¶10It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial. Order Date :- 22.11.2023 Ravi Kant (Krishan Pahal, J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad