Allowed

Sanjeev Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2023ABAIL/13300/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application, the court examined the case concerning the sale of impure zinc. Considering the applicant's cooperation during investigation, lack of custodial interrogation requirement post-charge sheet, and relevant Apex Court precedents, the court granted anticipatory bail till the conclusion of the trial.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each of similar amount subject to specified conditions.

Sanjeev Kumar Dixit Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:232666

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13300 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Dixit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar,Keshav Hari Dixit,Purushottam Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the material available on record. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Sanjeev Kumar Dixit in connection with Case Crime No. 692 of 2017 under sections 420, 467, 468 IPC and Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, P.S. Bekewar, District- Etawah.

¶8

On a complaint of sale of impure zinc a raid was made by the District Agricultural Officer with his team and it was found that Narmada Phos was being sold as Tata DAP by the present applicant in a shop but however the packets of zinc were found empty. Sample was sent for chemical analysis. FIR was lodged on 14.11.2017 after investigation now the charge sheet has been submitted.

¶9

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted. It is further submitted that it is a clear case of prosecution that the complaint was made with the Agricultural Officer for sale of improper zinc but as per contents of the FIR itself the packets of zinc which were retrieved from the shop of the applicant were empty. It is further submitted that so far as allegation regarding sale of Narmada Phos in the packets of Tata DAP is concerned, the chemical analysis report does not corroborate the prosecution version. It is further submitted that during investigation anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant now after submission of the charge sheet he is not

¶10

entitled for anticipatory bail. He has not misused the liberty of anticipatory which was granted during investigation and has been cooperative with the I.O. It is also submitted that there is no criminal history against the applicant. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute this fact that the applicant has been cooperative during investigation and now after submission of the charge sheet no custodial interrogation is required.

¶12

It reveals from the perusal of the record that no process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant till date and he has cooperated during the investigation.

¶13

Although the charge sheet has been submitted in this matter but in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶14

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶15

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶16

In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that :

¶17

"11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the

¶18

charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87 Cr.P.C that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.

¶19

In sofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170Cr.P.C, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."

¶20

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of trial in the matter.

¶21

The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.

¶22

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶23

i. 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

¶24

with the evidence.

¶25

ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶26

iii.The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶27

iv.The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶28

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

¶29

Order Date :- 8.12.2023 Fhd

¶30

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjeev Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar Dixit 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudha Vs State of U.P.

Hari Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vakil Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Laveesh Vs State of U.P.

Nijam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Pratap Chand Vs State of U.P. and Another