Dhirendra Kumar v. State of U.P

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13172 of 2023 Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Ali Imam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Heard Sri Syed Ali Imam, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, 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.120 of 2023, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC at Police Station-Jewar, District Gautam Buddh Nagar with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶4As per prosecution story, the applicant, who happens to be the Lekhpal in the department, is stated to have fudged the records pertaining to the identity of one imposter Omvati whose documents were prepared by the co-accused persons, namely Devendra Kumar Advocate, Balram Singh Advocate and Vinod Kumar Advocate and had opened an account in C.S.B. Bank, Ashok Vihar New Delhi. The applicant is stated to be the Lekhpal and had helped them in fudging the said documents as he had verified those documents produced by the co-accused persons.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is a bonafide person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. An inquiry was set-up against the applicant and charge-sheet has been submitted and the applicant has replied to it. The applicant is an employee and has only verified the said documents. He is still working on the said post to date. No transfer of title or property or money has been conducted pursuant to the said forgery committed by the co-accused persons. Learned counsel has further stated that pending the inquiry, no FIR can be instituted against the applicant.

¶6Several 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. The investigation is going on. 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.

¶8The case of the applicant is at a different footing to the co-accused persons, namely Devendra Kumar Advocate, Balram Singh Advocate and Vinod Kumar Advocate.

¶9On 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.

¶10In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant-Dhirendra Kumar 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.

¶11It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial. Order Date :- 08.12.2023 Ravi Kant (Krishan Pahal, J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad