Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 18701 of 2021 Applicant :- Chandrakesh Jaiswal @ Rishu Jaiswal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anup Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Anup Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri U.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant , seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Case Crime No. 430 of 2021, under Sections 406, 504 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District - Maharajganj.
Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that Om Prakash Jaiswal was the licence holder of the English Wine Shop who was the father of the applicant and after his death the said licence was transferred to Smt. Durgavati Devi, the mother of the applicant. It is argued that the allegation that there was around 16 Lacs due of the liquor is a false allegation. It is argued that there was no option of taking liquor without paying money. It is argued that the applicant even as per the first information report is neither the licence holder nor the owner of the shop and he has been falsely implicated in the present case only because of the reason that he is the son of Om Prakash Jaiswal, who was the original licence holder. It is argued that even otherwise, the allegation is of non deposit of money which would attract a civil liability and the present first information report has been lodged just to give the matter a different colour. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent as stated in para 23 of the affidavit.
Learned State counsel opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and argued that the applicant is named in the first information report and there is allegation against him.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the dispute is with regard to lifting of liquor without payment which continued for some time. The money is said to be due. The applicant is not licence holder of the shop in question.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation and the fact that he has no criminal antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.
In the event of arrest of the applicant Chandrakesh Jaiswal @ Rishu Jaiswal involved in Case Crime No. 430 of 2021 under Section406, 504 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District - Maharajganj, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police office as and when required;
(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;
(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.
The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.
The present anticipatory bail application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 20.12.2021 nd (Samit Gopal, J.)