Suneel Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12889 of 2023 Applicant :- Suneel Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raghuraj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶2The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 577 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶3As per prosecution story, the named accused persons Rajeev Singh Rathore, Ram Saran Kashyap and Dharmendra alongwith two unknown persons are stated to have duped the informant of his hard-earned money on the pretext that he alongwith other persons shall be given a job in Education department.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has the apprehension of his arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has next stated that the applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has come up later on during investigation, merely on the basis of surmises. There is no documentary proof to corroborate the prosecution story that the applicant is employed in the education department on the basis of fake documents. It is next stated that the applicant is a bonafide person and is Assistant Teacher in Education department.

¶5Several 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. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶6On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the applicant is the relative of the main accused person Rajeev Singh Rathore and Babita are hand in glove with them and is a part of the larger gang, who has duped several persons of the locality. Learned counsel for the informant has placed reliance on the rejection order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Kanpur City, whereby there are allegations against the applicant of employed as a teacher on the basis of fake documents, but he could not produce any FIR regarding the said fake employment.

¶7On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the fact that the applicant is not named in the FIR, coupled with the fact that there is no FIR against him of being employed as a teacher on the basis of fake documents in addition to the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶8Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.

¶9In the event of arrest of the applicant, Suneel Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:- 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 previous permission of the court; iv. that 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;

¶10In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶11It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. (Justice Krishan Pahal) Order Date :- 1.12.2023 Shalini High Court of Judicature at Allahabad