Saikat Taki Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

By means of the instant anticipatory bail application, the applicant Saikat Taki seeks interim protection in context with FIR/Crime No.352/2024, under Sections 318(4), 316(4), 335 read with 3(5) B.N.S., 2023 and Section 175(3) B.N.S.S., 2023 and Sections 21(1)(2)(3), 22 and 23 of The Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes, 2019 and Section 5 of The Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999, relating to police station Kurnool , IIITown, District Kurnool (Andhra Pradesh).

¶10

It is alleged that in the FIR in question primarily lodged against M/s. Shreya Infra Marketing Private Limited and 25 other co-accused which also includes the present applicant.

¶11

It is urged that as per the averments made in the FIR, it is alleged that at the behest of the co-accused Nos.5, 6 and 8, at their persuasion, a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs is said to have been deposited with the Company namely M/s. Shreya Infra Marketing Private Limited and it was promised that it would fetch handsome returns within a period of 18 months.

¶12

It is further alleged that despite having made the necessary investments, the promised returns were not paid. Further allegations have been made that the accused No.2, 3 and 4 as per the FIR have duped innocent public for investing and even fraudulent allotment of plots has been made.

¶13

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that insofar as the contents of the FIR are concerned, there are no direct allegations against the applicant.

¶14

It is also urged that there appears to be some dispute relating to deposit of money wherein allegations have been leveled against Hemant Kumar Rai, who is the husband of the coaccused, namely Smt. Sangeeta Rai. It has also been pointed out that the said FIR is in retaliation as the husband of the coaccused had already issued a notice to the opposite party No.3 and thereafter as a knee jerk reaction, the FIR has been lodged which is apparently malicious as there is no allegation either against the applicant and it has also not been indicated that in what capacity was the applicant responsible for any transactions and per se all the allegations are bald and without any basis.

¶15

It has also been stated that the applicant is respectable citizen having deep roots in the society and there is no criminal history to his credit except the instant matter which appears to be an outcome of a money dispute which is primarily civil in nature and by lodging of an FIR, a criminal colour is intended to be given to the said transaction to falsely implicate the applicant.

¶16

In such circumstances, it is submitted that proper protection be granted to the applicant, failing which, the applicant shall be severely prejudiced.

¶17

Learned AGA has opposed the aforesaid submissions and has further submitted that since the matter relates to the State of Andhra Pradesh, accordingly, instructions have been sought from the State concerned and as such not much can be said as the instructions are not complete. However, he could not dispute the fact from the bare perusal of the FIR, there are no direct allegations against the present applicant.

¶18

Though, the matter relates to the State of Andhra Pradesh and the applicant is seeking interim protection of transit and in this context, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka & Others, (2024) 4 SCC 749 and the relevant portion thereof reads as under:-

¶19

"36. In view of what we have discussed above, we are of the view that considering the constitutional imperative of protecting a citizen's right to life, personal liberty and dignity, the High Court or the Court of Session could grant limited anticipatory bail in the form of an interim protection Under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the interest of justice with respect to an FIR registered outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court, and subject to the following conditions:

¶20

(i) Prior to passing an order of limited anticipatory bail, the investigating officer and public prosecutor who are seized of the FIR shall be issued notice on the first date of the hearing, though the Court in an appropriate case would have the discretion to grant interim anticipatory bail.

¶21

(ii) The order of grant of limited anticipatory bail must record reasons as to why the Applicant apprehends an inter-state arrest and the impact of such grant of limited anticipatory bail or interim protection, as the case may be, on the status of the investigation.

¶22

(iii) The jurisdiction in which the cognizance of the offence has been taken does not exclude the said offence from the scope of anticipatory bail by way of a State Amendment to Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶23

(iv) The Applicant for anticipatory bail must satisfy the Court regarding his inability to seek anticipatory bail from the Court which has the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. The grounds raised by the Applicant may be -

¶24

a. a reasonable and immediate threat to life, personal liberty and bodily harm in the jurisdiction where the FIR is registered;

¶25

b. the apprehension of violation of right to liberty or impediments owing to arbitrariness;

¶26

c. the medical status/ disability of the person seeking extra- territorial limited anticipatory bail.

¶27

It would be impossible to fully account for all exigent circumstances in which an order of extra territorial anticipatory bail may be imminently essential to safeguard the fundamental rights of the applicant. We reiterate that such power to grant extra-territorial anticipatory bail should be exercised in exceptional and compelling circumstances only which means where, denying transit anticipatory bail or interim protection to enable the Applicant to make an application Under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure before a Court of competent jurisdiction would cause irremediable and irreversible prejudice to the applicant. The Court, while considering such an application for extra-territorial anticipatory bail, in case it deems fit may grant interim protection instead for a fixed period and direct the Applicant to make an application before a Court of competent jurisdiction."

¶28

Thus, without entering into the merits and demerits of the case and keeping an eye that the alleged offences wherein the F.I.R. has been lodged are triable by Magistrate and keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priya Indoria (supra), the liberty of the applicant may be protected for limited period of time by granting transit anticipatory bail only for the purpose of enabling him to move anticipatory bail application in the Courts having territorial jurisdiction i.e. at District Court, Kurnool or High Court of Andhra Pradesh, as the case may be.

¶29

Thus, instant anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicant Saikat Taki and is hereby finally disposed of in terms that the applicant - Saikat Taki , involved in aforesaid case crime number, in the event of his arrest within four weeks from today i.e. till 16.02.2025, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of

¶30

Rs.50,000/- to the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/ Arresting Officer/ Investigating Officer concerned with the following conditions:-

¶31

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation or for discovery of any fact to a police officer/investigating officer as and when required and will cooperate in the investigation.

¶32

(ii) 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;

¶33

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

¶34

It is clarified that protection from arrest under this order would be available to the applicant only four weeks from today i.e. 16.02.2025, before which he will have to approach the appropriate i.e. District Court, Kurnool or High Court of Andhra Pradesh by moving an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and beyond this date i.e. 16.02.2025, the applicant shall not be entitled for any protection unless any relief is granted by the District Court or High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

¶35

Order Date :- 15.1.2025 Rakesh/-

¶36

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Saikat Taki v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saikat Taki v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Upma Singh vs U.P. State Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director

Khadim India Limited Thru. Authorized Representative Tapas Kumar Chakraborty vs State of U.P. Thru. Director, Basic Education and another

Hari Shankar Singh and Another vs Anurag Pandey, Naib Tehsildar, Sadar, Gonda

Vijay Kumar @ Vijayee and 2 Others vs Smt. Narendar Kaur

Smt. Shashi Devi vs Satyam Singh

Gladys Basil Sharma vs Ravi Basil Sharma