Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12673 of 2023 Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kartikeya Shukla 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 material available on record.

¶2Apprehending his arrest, the present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Manoj Kumar in Case Crime No.280 of 2023, under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶3An agreement to sale was executed by the applicant in favour of the informant and the time limit for execution of the sale deed was fixed as two years, but during that period, the applicant promised the informant to pay Rs.7 lakh more to him and in lieu of that he was ready to execute the sale deed in respect of half acre extra land in favour of the applicant, however the same was paid through cheque but the said sale deed was not executed. F.I.R. was lodged and now charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter.

¶4It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. He has been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. It is further submitted that the applicant and the informant have already been in business transaction for long and the profit amount, which was due to the applicant, was paid by the informant to the applicant, which was amounting to Rs. 7 lakh. It is further submitted that so far as the execution of sale deed is concerned, it is a civil matter. It is further submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to execute the sale deed in favour of the informant, as agreed upon by way of agreement to sale. It is also submitted that during investigation, notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C. was given to the applicant and the said liberty was never misused by him. It is further submitted that no custodial interrogation is required in this matter from the applicant. Applicant has no criminal antecedents and as such he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶5Per contra, learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it has been submitted that Rs.7 lakh have been grabbed on false pretext of execution of sale deed for some extra land by the applicant in favour of the informant. It is further submitted that no sale deed has been executed in favour of the informant so far.

¶6In the present matter, charge-sheet has been submitted. The dispute prima facie appears to be of civil nature. During investigation, the applicant has been cooperative. No criminal history of the applicant has been brought to the notice of the Court. No custodial interrogation is required in the matter.

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

¶8In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that : "11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87CrPC that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.

¶12Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170CrPC, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."

¶9Hence, 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 of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till end of the trial in the matter.

¶10The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶11In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial 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;

(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 officer;

(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.

¶12In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 28.11.2023 ss High Court of Judicature at Allahabad