Applicant sought anticipatory bail in a 2015 FIR concerning forgery, cheating and criminal conspiracy. Not named in the FIR, aged and cooperating with the S.I.T., he received interim protection which was made absolute on conditions including cooperation and no witness influence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:52342
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1035 of 2024
Applicant :- Rajesh Chopra Opposite Party :- State Thru. Sit/ Gomti Nagar Counsel for Applicant :- Ratnesh Chandra,Smt. Padma Verma,Sunit Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/F.I.R No. 02/2015, under Sections 120-B, 204, 420, 464, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. S.I.T. Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.
This Court while granting interim protection vide order dated 21.05.2024 has passed the following order:-
"Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/F.I.R No. 02/2015, under Sections 120-B, 204, 420, 464, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. S.I.T. Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been made prosecution witness in multiple charge-sheet filed by the S.I.T. in various crime numbers registered in the instant matter which are pending trial before the learned court of Special Judge, Anti-corruption, C.B.I. Central, Lucknow, the details are given in para 13 of the bail application. He further submits that applicant is cooperating with the investigating agency and further undertakes to cooperate in the investigation. Applicant is not named in the F.I.R. he was not working in any of the alleged departments; he was neither
custodian nor he has prepared the mark-sheet or has verified him. There is no evidence against the applicant. He is 63 years old public servant and has retired on 30.09.2021.
Learned Addl. Government Advocate prays for and is allowed four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Thereafter, two weeks' time is granted to file rejoinder affidavit. List on 31.07.2024.
Considering the above aspect of the matter, perusal of the record as well as the fact that applicant is not named in the F.I.R., applicant is old age person and the applicant is undertaking to cooperate in the investigation as also the judgment of Apex Court passed in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.
The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.
In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection." Learned counsel for the applicant submits that investigation is going on, applicant has appeared before the Investigating Officer on 20.07.2024 and has been released on interim anticipatory bail. Applicant has cooperated in the investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the investigation. He has no criminal antecedent.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application, however, could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.
On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the fact applicant has no criminal history, he has cooperated in the investigation and he shall further
cooperate in the investigation, the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 21.05.2024 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.
In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant- Rajesh Chopra shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid Case Crime number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned with the following conditions:-
(1) The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses.
(2) The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/1.O./S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation.
(3) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.
(4) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.
The application disposed of.
Order Date :- 31.7.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-
Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be granted to an applicant not named in the FIR, aged 63, with no criminal history and cooperating with investigation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and anotherRelied on¶22
(2020)5 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajesh Chopra
State Thru. Sit/ Gomti Nagar
Karunesh Singh Pawar
As recorded by the court registry
6 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
