Allowed

Ghanshyam Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2024ABAIL/9282/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Ghanshyam Sharma accused under Sec. 409 IPC. The applicant alleged the FIR was registered retaliatory following a prior complaint he made against a public official, noting the investigation was pending and no specific embezzlement charge was made. The Court released him on bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with a personal bond and two sureties to be released on bail upon arrest if arrests occur.

Ghanshyam Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:181013

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9282 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ghanshyam Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Smt. Chandra Kala Chaturvedi,Vivek Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Manisha Chaturvedi, learned Advocate holding brief of Smt. Chandra Kala Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 142 of 2024, under Section 409 IPC, Police Station Khajni, District Gorakhpur, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged on 04.04.2024 against applicant under Section 409 IPC and according to the FIR, applicant was the Seasonal Collection Amin and he failed to provide details of the money collected by him and along with the record he was missing.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submitted that in the FIR, there is no specific allegation of embezzlement of public fund against the applicant and allegation against him is that he did not provide details of the alleged collected money but even entire allegation levelled against him is totally false and in paragraph no. 18 of the affidavit, applicant has specifically averred that he has already provided the entire details to the informant and others but in spite of that FIR of the present case was lodged against him.

¶10

She further submitted that actually before lodgment of the FIR of the present case, applicant made a complaint against W.B.N. Sri Devendra Pal Singh on 01.02.2024 and on his complaint, he was arrested while he was taking bribe and these facts are evident from Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit and after 28 days, FIR of the present case was lodged and this fact clearly suggests that on the

¶11

basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matte only due to his complaint dated 01.02.2024.

¶12

She further submitted that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of another case of Section 409 IPC but in that case, Division Bench of this Court has already stayed arrest of the applicant. She further submitted that investigation of the case is still pending and police is trying to arrest the applicant.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. however, opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but could not dispute the fact that even before lodgment of the FIR of the present case, applicant made a complaint of corruption against W.B.N. Sri Devendra Pal Singh and on his complaint, he was also arrested by anti corruption team.

¶14

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶15

However, applicant is the Seasonal Collection Amin and as per allegation, he did not provide the details of the money collected by him in time but it reflects that FIR of the present case was lodged on 04.04.2024 and even before lodgment of the FIR of the present case on 01.02.2024 applicant moved a complaint against W.B.N. Devendra Pal Singh and on his complaint, it appears that he was also arrested by anti corruption team and considering this fact the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant that only due to this reason, applicant has been made accused in the present matter, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

¶16

Further, there is no specific allegation against the applicant with regard to embezzlement of public fund.

¶17

Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is also having criminal history of another case of Section 409 IPC but in paragraph no. 25 of the affidavit, applicant has specifically made an averment that in that case, Division Bench of this Court has stayed his arrest.

¶18

Further, apprehension of arrest raised by applicant cannot be completely ruled out considering the fact that investigation of the case is still pending.

¶19

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial.

¶20

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶21

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Ghanshyam Sharma involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶22

i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶23

ii. that 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 with the evidence;

¶24

iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶25

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶26

v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶27

vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶28

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶29

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

¶30

Order Date :- 19.11.2024 KK Patel

¶31

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ghanshyam Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyam Sharma 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Santosh vs State of U.P. and Another

Anju Devi vs Santosh Rajbhar and Another

Smt Deepika Chauhan vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahwaqar vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Yaqub and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another