Allowed

Surendra Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. S.P. C.B.I/a.C.B. Lko.

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2023/437/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to an applicant accused of economic offences involving forged loan documents. Despite prior rejection based on economic offence principles, the court noted the applicant's full cooperation, lack of arrest at FIR stage, and grant of bail to a co-accused, concluding release was appropriate.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding court attendance and prohibition on leaving the country without permission.

Surendra Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. S.P. C.B.I/a.C.B… — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 437 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. S.P. C.B.I/A.C.B. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the C.B.I.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant (Surendra Kumar Verma) is in jail since 20.12.2022 in Court Case No. 24 of 2020, Crime No. RC-0062017 A 0018, u/s 120-B, R/W 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A IPC and section 13(2) RW section 13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988, P.S. CBI/ ACB, District Lucknow.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that pursuant to the complaint being made by AGM/GM UCO Bank, Kanpur dated 04.09.2017 the Central Bureau of India has lodged F.I.R on 12.09.2017 against 42 persons including the present applicant. The allegation against the present applicant is that he is a loanee who has taken loan from the said Bank by producing forged and fictitious documents. Undisputedly, after lodging the F.I.R. present applicant has not been arrested. Further, during investigation, he co-operated with the investigation, thereafter charge-sheet was filed on 20.12.2019. He has never misused the process of law, however, apprehending his arrest he filed an anticipatory bail application bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12549 of 2021 which was rejected by this Court on 17.11.2022 giving liberty to the applicant to file regular bail application before the learned trial court and the direction has been issued to the learned trial court to decide regular bail application of the applicant in the light of dictum of Apex Court in re: Aman Preet Singh vs. CBI through Director as well as Siddharth vs. State of U.P. & another.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that in compliance of the aforesaid order, the present applicant has appeared before the learned trial court and filed his bail application. The present applicant was released on interim bail by the learned trial court, however, subsequently the bail application of the present applicant was rejected vide order dated 20.12.2022 in the light of the dictum of Apex Court in re: Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. C.B.I., AIR (2013) SC 933 wherein Apex Court has held that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the coaccused, namely, Smt. Mishilesh Chaurasiya, has already been granted bail by this Court bide order dated 06.01.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.152 of 2023 (Smt. Mithilesh Chaurasiya vs. C.B.I.), therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may also be released on bail.

¶10

The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted. Sri Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that the present applicant shall try his level best to make some repayment of the amount of loan to the Bank.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the C.B.I. has opposed the prayer for bail and have stated that the regular bail of the present applicant has been rejected in view of the dictum of Apex Court in re: Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (supra).

¶12

Be that as it may, without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perusing the material available on record and the fact that there is no dispute that the economic offences constitute a class apart but the facts and circumstances of the particular case should have been perused by the learned trial court and the specific reason of arrest at the stage of trial should have been indicated in the bail rejection order. In the present case admittedly, the present applicant who is loanee has not been arrested when the C.B.I. has lodged the F.I.R. on 12.09.2017. He cooperated in the investigation till filing of the charge-sheet which was filed on 20.12.2019. He never misused the process of law and participated in the proceedings. It was incumbent upon the trial court who has rejected the bail to indicate the specific reason as to why at this stage his arrest was warranted. The Apex Court in re: Siddharth (supra) and Aman Preet Singh (supra) and has observed that the arrest of a person in each and every case is not mandatory and if a person concerned is cooperating in the trial proceedings properly and there is no complaint against him or her of noncooperation or misuse of process of law, his / her arrest may only be made, if there is any compelling circumstances or cogent reasons and the fact that the co-accused (Smt. Mithilesh Chaurasiya) has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 06.01.2023, I find it a fit case for granting bail to the present applicant.

¶13

Let the applicant (Surendra Kumar Verma), involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties 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 shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against

¶17

him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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 her in accordance with law.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned.

¶20

Before parting with it is expected that the trial shall be concluded with expedition. Further, the learned trial court may take all coercive measures as per law if either of the parties do not co-operate in the trial properly. The learned trial court shall fix short dates to ensure that trial is concluded at the earliest.

¶21

Order Date :- 11.1.2023 [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Suresh/

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Surendra Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. S.P. C.B.I/a.C.B. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. S.P. C.B.I/a.C.B. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suraj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Vinod Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Pramod Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Lakhan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. U.P. Lko.

Ravindra Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Lko.

Mayank Bajpai Vs State of U.P. Thru. S.P. C.B.I/a.C.B. Lko.