Allowed

Arvind Kumar v. Cbi/Scb Lko.

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2024ABAIL/1765/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application, the Allahabad High Court converted interim protection to absolute bail for the applicant, a retired banker accused of corruption. The court emphasized the applicant's cooperation, lack of criminal history, and the filing of the charge sheet while imposing standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted absolutely on personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding trial attendance and evidence tampering.

Arvind Kumar Vs Cbi/Scb Lko. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:62949

¶2

Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1765 of 2024 Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Opposite Party :- Cbi/Scb Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Pranjal Krishna,Anubhav Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶4

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in F.I.R./Crime No. RC 03(A)/2022, Police Station CBI/SCB, Lucknow under Section 120B r/w 406 and 420 IPC & Section 7 of PC Act, 1988 & Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by Shri Anurag Singh learned counsel for CBI is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Shri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for CBI.

¶7

This Court while granting interim protection to the applicant vide order dated 06.08.2024 has passed the following order:-

¶8

"The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. RC 03(A)/2022, P.S. CBI/SCB Lucknow, Lucknow.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Anurag Kumar, learned counsel for CBI.

¶10

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶11

In the charge sheet para 16.30, it is alleged that Shri Dutt Sharma (then Cluster Head AGM and Shri Arvind Kumar (then Chief Manager) did not monitor and use of funds which were diverted in lending unsecured loans to private parties for which credit facility was not sanctioned. It is also alleged that pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, both have allowed non-business transactions to the accused company M/s Atarson Overseas Pvt. Ltd. which caused wrongful loss to the bank.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not the person responsible to monitor end use of funds. In support of the contention, he has drawn attention of the Court towards the document on record Annexure No. 9 and 10. It has been further submitted that the applicant has retired as Chief Manager on 31.03.2023. The custody of the applicant was not sought by the CBI. It is also submitted that since charge sheet has been filed, therefore, no custodial interrogation is required. The applicant cooperated in the investigation.

¶13

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court passed in the cases of "Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. CBI and others, SLP Criminal No. 5191/2021", "Mahdoom Bava Vs. CBI, SLP (Crl No. 376/2023", "Aman Preet Singh Vs. CBI, Criminal Appeal No. 929/20211" and "Siddharth Vs. State of U.P. and another", (2022) 1 SCC 676".

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicant shall cooperate in the

¶15

trial.

¶16

Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for CBI does not dispute the fact that during investigation, the applicant was not taken into custody and at present also custody is not required.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for CBI prays for and is allowed ten days' time to file counter affidavit.

¶18

List on 28.08.2024.

¶19

On due consideration to the judgments cited above as well as considering the role assigned to the applicant and in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the applicant is not a previous convict and having no criminal history and also considering the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, as an interim measure, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶20

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 court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶21

(1) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial and he will not influence the witnesses.

¶22

(2) The accused-applicant will remain present on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶23

(3) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court."

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that charge sheet in the matter has been filed. The applicant has cooperated in the investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

¶25

Learned counsel for CBI has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶26

On due consideration to the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of "Mahdoom Bava v. CBI, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 299" as well as considering the fact that charge sheet has been filed in the matter; the applicant has cooperated in the investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the trial, the interim protection granted vide order dated 06.08.2024 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶27

In view of the above, since, charge-sheet in the matter has been filed, if the applicant is summoned to face trial for offence in question, he shall be released on bail by the trial court on his

¶28

furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶29

(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 tamper with the evidence;

¶30

(ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶31

(iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶32

(iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶33

(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶34

Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.

¶35

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶36

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed .

¶37

Order Date :- 11.9.2024 R.C.

¶38

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arvind Kumar v. Cbi/Scb Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar v. Cbi/Scb 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Rajesh @ Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home , Lucknow and Annother

Sunil Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Ramu Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Amit Khandel Wal Vs Cbi/Scb Lucknow

Kuldeep vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another