Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 15544 of 2021 Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Bathla And 2 Othres Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Punit Kumar Gupta, Poorva Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Satyanand Tripathi, Sikandar B. Kochar, Vimlendu Tripathi
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Punit Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sikandar B. Kochar, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to release them on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.715 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Partapur, district Meerut, during pendency of investigation/trial.
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.
The first information report of this incident was lodged in pursuance of an application given to Inspector General of Police, Meerut Zone, Meerut by the complainant, who is said to be Director of Light Carts Private Limited and registered office of the company is situated at Post Office Rithani Delhi Road, Police Station Partapur, Meerut. It was alleged in the first information report that accused person Manoj Kumar Bathla, applicant no.1 is also a Director in the said company along with complainant. It was also alleged that the said company booked a flat in Alakhnanda Apartment, Sector-4, Gomti Nagar Extension, Lucknow on 30.11.2009. It was also alleged that the company had paid initially an amount of Rs.1.47 lacs., later-on rest of the total cost of flat of Rs.36,18,279/- was paid by the said company to Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow. It was also alleged that accused/applicant no.1, Manoj Kumar Bathla, was authorized by the said company to execute the sale deed in favour of the company and on that authorization, the sale deed was executed by the applicant no.1 in his favour. It was also alleged that when applicant no.1, Manoj Kumar Bathla along with his wife, applicant no.2 and Yogesh Kumar Tyagi, applicant no.3 returned from Lucknow then applicant no.1has informed that he had executed the sale deed in the name of said company but has forgotten the original sale deed as and when he will found it, the same will be submitted to the company. It was also alleged that named accused persons including the applicants had syphoned off the company's money and thereby they have committed offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. He submitted that the Directors of the said company are real brothers and their father was also one of the Director in the said company. He submitted that applicant no.1 has taken a soft loan from the said company, owned by himself and other Directors and he had purchased disputed flat from Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow in his name. He has not embezzled the company's money in his name and he has taken soft loan, which he has re-paid to the company, which is apparent from the affidavit of father of applicant no.1, copy whereof has been annexed on page no.98 of paper book. He submitted that the dispute arose amongst the directors of the said company over the affairs of the company and they had approached National Company Law Tribunal in this regard also. He submitted that it was purely a civil dispute, which has been given a colour of criminal nature. He submitted that the first information report has been lodged with the object of injuring the reputation of the applicants by having them so arrested. He further submitted that in case they are being released on anticipatory bail they will not tamper with the evidence and they will cooperate during investigation.
Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants and submitted that the applicants have syphoned off the company's money and non-bailable warrants have been issued against the applicants in the month of July, 2021.
After considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that there is a case registered against the applicants. It cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend them. After lodging of F.I.R, the arrest can be made by the police at will. There is no definite period fixed for the police to arrest an accused against whom an F.I.R has been lodged. The courts have repeatedly held that arrest should be the last option for the police and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative or his custodial interrogation is required. Irrational and indiscriminate arrests are gross violation of human rights. In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 1349, the Apex Court has referred to the third report of National Police Commission wherein it is mentioned that arrests by the police in India is one of the chief source of corruption in the police. The report suggested that, by and large, nearly 60 percent of the arrests were either unnecessary or unjustified and that such unjustified police action accounted for 43.2 percent of expenditure of the jails. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative. According to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the arrest of an accused should be made. The learned counsel has also place reliance on the order dated 28.7.2021 passed by the The Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5191 of 2021 Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that prima facie, we cannot appreciate why in such a scenario is there a requirement for the petitioner being sent to custody.
Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, considering that applicant no.1 and complainant are real brothers and also Directors in the same company and dispute has arisen between directors of the company over sharing of profit, considering that the applicants will not leave the territory of Meerut district without mentioning of their whereabouts to the concerned police station, considering the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5191 of 2021.
In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail.
Let the applicants Manoj Kumar Bathla, Smt. Rachna Bathla and Yogesh Kumar Tyagi involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court/ Investigating Officer concerned with the following conditions:-
1. The applicants shall, at the time of execution of the bond, furnish their address and mobile number and shall not change the residence till the conclusion of investigation/ trial without informing the Investigating Officer of the police/ the Court concerned of change of address and the reasons for the same before changing the same.
2. The applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial/ investigation by police without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
3. The applicants shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not play mischeif with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the Investigating Officer of the police;
4. The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court/ Investigating Officer forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court/ Investigating Officer till the investigation is completed. In case they have no passport, they will file their affidavit before the Court/ Investigating Officer concerned in this regard.
5. That the applicants 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;
6. The applicants shall maintain law and order.
7. The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.
8. In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and the Government Advocate/informant/complainant can file bail cancellation application.
9. The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
10. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
11. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 21.12.2021 R./