Raj Kishor Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12433 of 2022 Applicant :- Raj Kishor Shukla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Devi Prasad Tripathi,Manish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶3This is the second anticipatory bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.17712 of 2021.

¶4Heard Sri Devi Prasad Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶5The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.330 of 2021, registered under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at Police Station-Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶6As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have impersonated as Secretary of Firoz Shramik Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Kanpur Nagar and had taken away a sum of Rs.9,45,000/- from one Anjani Kumar Mishra.

¶7Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the instant FIR has not been lodged by the aggrieved person Anjani Kumar Mishra rather it has been instituted by one Rajeev Mishra. The said FIR is abuse of process of law. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant was granted interim protection by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.17712 of 2021, but the same was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 09.09.2022. The case of the applicant has been put to jeopardy on account of the absence of the counsel for the applicant, as such the instant anticipatory bail application has been filed and the applicant was granted interim protection by this Court vide order dated 08.12.2022. The applicant has not misused the said opportunity granted earlier.

¶8Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained in the supplementary affidavit filed today. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. 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. 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.

¶9Per 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.

¶10On 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.

¶11In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant-Raj Kishor Shukla 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.

¶12It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial. Order Date :- 14.12.2023 Ravi Kant (Krishan Pahal, J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad