Allowed

Vinod Kumar Gupta @ Vinod Kumar Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2023ABAIL/11765/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge heard an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding case Crime No. 352 of 2020 involving allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court finalized an interim bail granted earlier, releasing the applicant on bail upon furnishing a bond and adhering to specific conditions to ensure availability for investigation until the submission of the poli

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; interim anticipatory bail made absolute till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. or 90 days, subject to specific conditions regarding police interrogation and

Vinod Kumar Gupta @ Vinod Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of U.P… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11765 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Gupta @ Vinod Kumar Jaiswal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vindhyachal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 352 of 2020, under sections 406, 420, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶8

On 25.8.2021, Coordinate Bench of this Court, while granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant, has passed following order :-

¶9

(1) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A and perused the record.

¶10

(2) The instant application is being moved by the applicant namely, Vinod Kumar Gupta @ Vinod Kumar Jaiswal invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. that he has every reason to believe that he may be arrested on the accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence in connection with Case Crime no. 352 of 2020, under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Kanpur Nagar.

¶11

(3) From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court after getting his anticipatory bail rejected from the court of sessions vide order dated 05.04.2021.

¶12

(4) Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

¶13

(5) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has got no criminal antecedents and he has not undergone any imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any

¶14

cognizable offence previously. An assurance was also advanced by learned counsel for the applicant on behalf of the applicant that he would render all requisite co-operation and assistance in the process of law and with the investigating agency and shall not create any hindrance to reach to its logical conclusion and shall not flee away from the course of justice.

¶15

(6) Learned counsel for the applicant has strenuously argued that the applicant has been made target just to besmirch his reputation and belittle him in the public estimate by the informant. Number of arguments were advanced by learned counsel for the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the accusation made in the FIR against the applicant by the informant. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgements in the cases of Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273; Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. and others (1994) 4 SCC 260 and Sanaul Haque vs State of U.P. and another, 2008 Cri. LJ 1998, to buttress his contentions.

¶16

(7) In this backdrop of legal as well as factual proposition, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The sole and gist of the entire controversy is hinges upon the contractual obligation by which responsible persons who after digesting the amount, not executed the sale deed. As mentioned above, the sole and gist of the present case is civil in nature which can be redress before appropriate forum.

¶17

(8) Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application by mentioning that though the applicant has got no criminal antecedents but there is nothing on record to satisfy that the police personnel are after the applicant to arrest him. The alleged apprehension on behalf of applicant is imaginary and unfounded one. Learned A.G.A. has also submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the applicant is not entitled for any relaxation from this Court.

¶18

(9) After the close scrutiny of Section 438 Cr.P.C.(U.P. Act No.4 of 2019) and its relevant clauses, the Court is satisfied that the applicant has made out the case for interim order protecting the liberty of applicant in connection with aforesaid case crime pending investigation.

¶19

(10) Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may be adversely affect the investigation and subsequent stage of the case, the Court directs that in the event of arrest of the applicant in aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer till the submission of report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer with the conditions that :

¶20

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for the interrogation by the police as and when required. The Investigating Officer of the case would give 48 hours prior notice or telephonically inform the concerned accused-applicant to remain available to him for the purposes of interrogation and the accused-applicant is obliged to abide by such directions.

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,

¶22

threats or comments to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the correct facts to the court or to the police officer.

¶23

(iii) The Investigating Officer of the case would make all necessary endeavour to gear up the investigation in utmost transparent and professional way and would try to conclude the same within a maximum period of 90 days. During this period the accused-applicant would not leave the State of Uttar Pradesh without informing the Investigating Officer of the case and sharing his contact number.

¶24

(iv) In the event the applicant is having his passports, he will have to surrender the same before the concerned SP/SSP of the District till the submission of report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C.

¶25

(11) In the event, the applicant breach or attempt to breach any of the aforesaid conditions or wilfully violate above conditions or abstains himself from the investigation, it would be open for the Investigating Officer or the concerned authority to apply before the court of Session for cancellation of interim protection and the Court of Session has every liberty and freedom to revoke the anticipatory bail after recording the reasons for the same.

¶26

(12) While entertaining the instant anticipatory bail application before this Court, there is no concrete material on record except the canvassed apprehension of the applicant on his arrest and the severity of accusation made in the FIR against him. After being satisfied on the limited material, the interest/liberty of the applicant is protected by this Court with aforesaid riders during the course of investigation, after recording its nascent satisfaction. However, continuance of instant interim protection or ultimate fate of instant application would be decided, subject to the counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. and the material brought on record against the applicant during the investigation.

¶27

(13) Learned A.G.A. should file counter affidavit soon after submission of report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. or 90 days, whichever is earlier.

¶28

(14) Life of the instant protection would continue till the submission of charge sheet or 90 days, whichever is earlier.

¶29

(15) List this anticipatory bail application after two months before appropriate Court."

¶30

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that investigation is still going on. Till date, no charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. The applicants are cooperating with the investigation and did not misuse the liberty of aforesaid interim anticipatory bail which was granted on 25.8.2021 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

¶31

Learned AGA for the State does not dispute the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the appellant.

¶32

In view of the above, aforesaid interim anticipatory bail order

¶33

dated 25.8.2021 is made absolute till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on the terms and conditions as indicated in the above order dated 25.8.2021.

¶34

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶35

Order Date :- 2.2.2023 S. Singh

¶36

Digitally signed by :- SAVITA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinod Kumar Gupta @ Vinod Kumar Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Gupta @ Vinod Kumar Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Vinod Kumar Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P.

Satyapal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tahira Bano Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Nazim and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Sameer and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Madhau Singh Vs State of Up