Allowed

Naveen Kumar Sharma v. Central Bureau of Investigation,Anti Corruption Branch

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2022BAIL/18172/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Naveen Kumar Sharma in a corruption and cheating case. The court found no personal benefit to the applicant and no convincing material suggesting tampering with evidence, granting bail on conditions including furnishing bonds and sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties on specified conditions.

Naveen Kumar Sharma Vs Central Bureau of Investigation,Anti… — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18172 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Naveen Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation,Anti Corruption Branch

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Tewari,Zafar Abbas Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Zafar Abbas, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyan Prakash, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the C.B.I, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Naveen Kumar Sharma, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with R.C. No.1202018A003, under Sections 409, 420 IPC, 13(1) (c&d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B r/w Section 409, 420 IPC and Section 120-B r/w Section 13(1)(c&d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station C.B.I. A.C.B. Ghaziabad, District Ghaziabad.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that the applicant was posted as Assistant Manager in the Bank and the allegation against him is that he along with co-accused dishonestly and fraudulently transferred the fund in 219 bank accounts of Prathama Kisan Credit Cards which were opened with conspiracy with other persons and also into the accounts of family members of Vipin Kumar and in the account of one Jitendra Arya. As per the prosecution case, the applicant is not beneficiary of the money. No money has been credited in his account or in any account of his family member. The only allegation against the applicant is of use of his user I.D for fraudulent transfers in various accounts. The same is without any mens-rea and the applicant was not the sole person transferring it in account. There are other officials also who passed and cleared the entries and then money was transferred. It is further argued that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted by the C.B.I against the applicant, co-accused Vipin Kumar and Jitendra Arya, as such there are no chances of the applicant not cooperating with the trial or tempering with the evidence. The applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 15 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 25.2.2022.

¶9

Per contra learned counsel for the C.B.I opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the official I.D. of the applicant was used for transferring of the amount in different accounts along with other co-accused persons. The charge sheet in the matter has been submitted. Even money was transferred in the account of some persons who were dead and the same was withdrawn, as such the prayer for bail be rejected.

¶10

After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that there is no transfer of money either in the account of the applicant or in any account of his family members. The charge sheet has been submitted in the present case.

¶11

The case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of coaccused Vipin Kumar.

¶12

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Let the applicant-Naveen Kumar Sharma, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (one of the surety will be of family member) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶17

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings

¶18

against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶20

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶21

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶22

The bail application is allowed.

¶23

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 23.8.2022 Gaurav

¶25

Digitally signed by GAURAV KULSHRESTHA Date: 2022.08.24 16:06:27 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Naveen Kumar Sharma v. Central Bureau of Investigation,Anti Corruption Branch

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Kumar Sharma v. Central Bureau of Investigation,Anti Corruption Branch

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arshad Kha Vs State of U.P.

Ram Adhar Vs State of U.P.

Rohitash Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Surya Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ayush Srivastava Vs State of U.P.

Jay Narayan Gupta Vs State of U.P.