# Manoj Kumar Bathla v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1837
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-24
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3099 of 2023
- **Bench:** Nalin Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manoj-kumar-bathla-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50275
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Criminal Law - anticipatory bail application
under section 438 Cr.P.C.-order cancelling
the
anticipatory
bail
challenged-further
relief of grant of anticipatory bail soughtFIR registered under Sections 406, 420,
467,
468,
471
IPC-anticipatory
bail
cancelled on account of flouting of bail
conditions by the applicant-chargesheet
already submitted-trial in progress-nothing
in record to show that the applicant
committed any offence after the grant of
anticipatory
bail-NCLT
proceedings
independent
of
criminal
proceedingscriminal court cannot act as an executing
court for any other forum-impugned order
cancelling
anticipatory
bail
set
asidefurthermore, anticipatory bail till the end of
trial granted to the applicant.

HELD:
It is not in dispute that charge sheet into the
matter has been filed. In one part of the
1838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
impugned order, various observations have been
made by the Sessions Judge, Meerut in respect
of the alleged violation of Condition No.6 by the
accused / applicant and while doing so the
Court concerned entered into the history of
dispute between the parties and a chain of
events has been sketched but it lacks a cogent
reasoning. This Court does not find any
justification in the aforesaid observations made
by the Sessions Judge, Meerut capable of
making the accused / applicant liable for
violative of aforementioned Condition No.6.
Whether any criminal matter against the present
accused / applicant subsequent to the order
dated 10.3.2022, resulted into charge sheet, is
not clear from the impugned order. Charge
sheet has already been submitted in the present
case and now the trial is going on before the
Magistrate concerned. Thus, to hold that the
Condition No.6 imposed vide order dated
10.3.2022 was violated by the accused /
applicant, is not correct.

This fact is also to be taken into account that
what orders to be passed by the NCLT in future
is not a subject concerning to the Sessions
Court sitting in the forum of anticipatory bail.
The NCLT in itself is empowered to enforce its
own orders under the provisions of the
Companies Act. The NCLT for the execution of
its orders or to meet out the conditions, where
its orders are flouted, is not dependent upon
any other forum / Court and is competent
enough to meet out this contingency. Also, it
was not a genuine condition to ask the applicant
to comply with all previous orders, which were
already passed by the NCLT and which might be
subjudiced too in any higher forum.

The aforesaid situation takes this Court to the
direction of considering as to whether a Criminal
Court may act like an Executing Court for any
other forum.

The impugned order is not clear on the point as
to how the Court concerned came to the
conclusion that a fair trial is not possible if the
accused is allowed to retain his freedom of
anticipatory bail during trial. It also reveals that
the Court concerned travelled beyond its
jurisdiction and placed reliance upon the
materials outside the record which were not
relevant at that stage. How the Court concerned
was sure that the applicant was trying to win
over the witnesses of the case and in this way
the fair trial of the case was not possible is an
issue which remains illusive in the impugned
order.

In view of the aforesaid discussions and the law
governing the subject, the Court is of the
opinion
that
the
impugned
order
dated
10.3.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge,
Meerut is not sustainable in law and the same is
liable to be set-aside. The impugned order
dated 10.3.2023 is accordingly set-aside.

Application allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Manoj Kumar Bathla Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1837
in her statement recorded under Section
164 Cr.P.C. but even as has been observed
in the order rejecting the first bail
application of the applicant, Km. Rakhi has
not been arrayed as a witness in any of the
capacities in the list of witnesses of charge
sheet on which the prosecution relies for its
case. If she, her conduct, her status or her
acts, if any, have to be considered, the same
may be subject matter of trial. At the stage
of consideration of bail, the Court can only
go into the question of the case being prima
facie established for granting bail. It cannot
go into the question of credibility and
reliability of the witness/es put up by the
prosecution. The question of credibility and
reliability of witness/es can only be tested
during trial. The order sheet of the trial
court which is in the supplementary
affidavit although shows that the case has
been committed to the Court of Session on
12.01.2022 but the same is pending till date
but charge in the present matter has not
been framed despite the same being fixed
for framing of charge since 07.05.2022 as
is evident from the order sheet of the said
date.

24. Considering the arguments of
learned counsels for the parties, perusing
the records and the law on the issue, there
is no fresh and new ground available in the
present second bail application. This Court
does not find any substantial change in the
circumstance so far as merit of the case is
concerned. This Court does not a find it a
fit case for bail.

25.

The
bail
application
is,
accordingly, rejected.

26. However, the trial court may take
up the trial and proceed with it in
accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C.,
subject to any legal impediment.

The applicant may file this order
before the trial court within two weeks
from today.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1837
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.04.2023 &
08.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3099
of 2023
(u/s 438 Cr.P.C.)

Manoj Kumar Bathla ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Pranav Tiwary, Sri Yagyavalk Pandey, Sri
Manish Tiwary (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Sri Adesh Kumar, Sri Sushil Shukla

Criminal Law - anticipatory bail application
under section 438 Cr.P.C.-order cancelling
the
anticipatory
bail
challenged-further
relief of grant of anticipatory bail soughtFIR registered under Sections 406, 420,
467,
468,
471
IPC-anticipatory
bail
cancelled on account of flouting of bail
conditions by the applicant-chargesheet
already submitted-trial in progress-nothing
in record to show that the applicant
committed any offence after the grant of
anticipatory
bail-NCLT
proceedings
independent
of
criminal
proceedingscriminal court cannot act as an executing
court for any other forum-impugned order
cancelling
anticipatory
bail
set
asidefurthermore, anticipatory bail till the end of
trial granted to the applicant.

HELD:
It is not in dispute that charge sheet into the
matter has been filed. In one part of the
1838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
impugned order, various observations have been
made by the Sessions Judge, Meerut in respect
of the alleged violation of Condition No.6 by the
accused / applicant and while doing so the
Court concerned entered into the history of
dispute between the parties and a chain of
events has been sketched but it lacks a cogent
reasoning. This Court does not find any
justification in the aforesaid observations made
by the Sessions Judge, Meerut capable of
making the accused / applicant liable for
violative of aforementioned Condition No.6.
Whether any criminal matter against the present
accused / applicant subsequent to the order
dated 10.3.2022, resulted into charge sheet, is
not clear from the impugned order. Charge
sheet has already been submitted in the present
case and now the trial is going on before the
Magistrate concerned. Thus, to hold that the
Condition No.6 imposed vide order dated
10.3.2022 was violated by the accused /
applicant, is not correct.

This fact is also to be taken into account that
what orders to be passed by the NCLT in future
is not a subject concerning to the Sessions
Court sitting in the forum of anticipatory bail.
The NCLT in itself is empowered to enforce its
own orders under the provisions of the
Companies Act. The NCLT for the execution of
its orders or to meet out the conditions, where
its orders are flouted, is not dependent upon
any other forum / Court and is competent
enough to meet out this contingency. Also, it
was not a genuine condition to ask the applicant
to comply with all previous orders, which were
already passed by the NCLT and which might be
subjudiced too in any higher forum.

The aforesaid situation takes this Court to the
direction of considering as to whether a Criminal
Court may act like an Executing Court for any
other forum.

The impugned order is not clear on the point as
to how the Court concerned came to the
conclusion that a fair trial is not possible if the
accused is allowed to retain his freedom of
anticipatory bail during trial. It also reveals that
the Court concerned travelled beyond its
jurisdiction and placed reliance upon the
materials outside the record which were not
relevant at that stage. How the Court concerned
was sure that the applicant was trying to win
over the witnesses of the case and in this way
the fair trial of the case was not possible is an
issue which remains illusive in the impugned
order.

In view of the aforesaid discussions and the law
governing the subject, the Court is of the
opinion
that
the
impugned
order
dated
10.3.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge,
Meerut is not sustainable in law and the same is
liable to be set-aside. The impugned order
dated 10.3.2023 is accordingly set-aside.

Application allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Dilip Singh Vs St.of M. P. & anr., (2021) 2 SCC
779

2. Udho Thakur & anr.Vs St.of Jharkhand & anr.,
2022 SCC OnLIne SC 1712

3. Savitri Agarwal & ors.Vs St.of Mah. & anr.,
(2009) 8 SCC 325

4. Dolat Ram & ors.Vs St.of Haryana, (1995)1
SCC 349

5. Charu Soneja Vs St.(NCT of Delhi) &
ors.(Criminal M.C. 2050 of 2021), decided on
3.1.2022

6. Raghubir Singh & ors.Vs St.of Bihar, (1986) 4
SCC 481

7. Sushila Aggarwal & ors.Vs St.(NCT of Delhi) &
anr., (2020) 5 SCC 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Nalin Kumar
Srivastava, J.)

1. This application has been moved
on behalf of the applicant - Manoj Kumar
Bathla with the prayer to quash the
impugned order dated 10.3.2023 passed by
the Sessions Judge, Meerut whereby
anticipatory bail granted to the applicant
vide order dated 16.3.2022 has been
cancelled and further to grant anticipatory
5 All. Manoj Kumar Bathla Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1839
bail to the applicant in Case Crime No.
0574 of 2019, Criminal Case No. 23164 of
2021 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468,
471 IPC, Police Station Medical College,
District Sambhal.

2. Heard Shri Manish Tiwary, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by S/Shri Pranav
Tiwari and Yagyavalk Pandey, learned
counsel for the applicant, Shri Sushil
Shukla, learned counsel for the informant
as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.

3. It has been submitted by the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
applicant that the order dated 10.3.2023, by
which the anticipatory bail granted to the
applicant vide order dated 16.3.2022 has
been cancelled, is bad in the eyes of law
and as a matter of fact the applicant did not
flout any of the conditions imposed by the
Court
concerned
while
granting
anticipatory bail to the applicant. It is
further submitted that while granting
anticipatory bail vide aforesaid order dated
16.3.2022 a total of eight conditions were
imposed upon the applicant and he
complied with all the conditions. It is
vehemently submitted that the impugned
order
dated
10.3.2023,
whereby
anticipatory bail granted to the applicant
has been cancelled, reflects that the
Sessions Judge, Meerut has emphasized
mainly upon non-compliance of condition
no.8 imposed by the said order wherein it
was mentioned that the applicant has to file
an undertaking to the effect that he will
ensure compliance of the order passed by
the National Company Law Tribunal (in
short 'the NCLT'). In this case, it is
submitted that after passing the order dated
16.3.2022, no further order was passed by
the NCLT and hence, there was no occasion
for the applicant for non-compliance of any
further order passed by the NCLT. It is next
submitted that the Sessions Judge, Meerut
has impressed upon the orders passed by
the NCLT prior to passing of the order
dated 16.3.2022 and non-compliance of the
said earlier orders has been made a
substantial ground for cancelling the
anticipatory bail. It is, thus, vehemently
submitted that said approach of the
Sessions Judge, Meerut was not tenable in
law, as no order can be made effective
retrospectively. It is also submitted that if
some orders were passed by the NCLT in
the matter pending before it between the
parties to the litigation, it was for the NCLT
to take proper action in respect of noncompliance of the same. A criminal court
cannot be said to be an executing court for
execution of the orders passed by any other
forum / authority. It is further submitted
that the applicant has not repeated any alike
offences, as were levelled against him in
the F.I.R. of the present case and, as such,
he has not flouted condition no.6 as well
imposed upon him vide order dated
16.3.2022, which has also been made a
ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail
granted to the applicant by the Court
concerned by aforesaid order. It is also
submitted that since anticipatory bail was
granted to the applicant by the Sessions
Court Meerut till the conclusion of trial, it
is explicitly clear that the Sessions Court
concerned expressed its view in favour of
the applicant and found sufficient and
reasonable grounds for grant of anticipatory
bail to him till the end of trial. Lastly, it is
submitted that the impugned order dated
10.3.2023 deserves to be set-aside and
cancelled and further the applicant be
granted anticipatory bail till the end of trial.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the
informant as well as the learned AGA have
submitted that the order dated 16.3.2022,
1840 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
whereby anticipatory bail was granted to
the applicant imposing certain conditions
upon him, reflects that a total of eight
conditions were imposed upon him out of
which
Condition
No.1
directed
the
applicant to furnish a bank guarantee of the
value of Rs. Five Crores. Since Rupees
Five Crores was a huge amount, an
application was moved by the applicant to
exempt him to comply with the said
condition no. 1 or the amount of bank
guarantee be lessened. It is further
submitted that vide order dated 28.6.2022,
the Court concerned cancelled Condition
No.1 to furnish the bank guarantee to the
tune of Rupees Five Crores and further the
applicant was directed to furnish a properly
stamped and notorised indemnity bond in
sum of Rupees Five Crores mentioning
therein that he will not create any third
party right, charge, mortgage or any other
lien in any manner of properties held by
him and mentioned in the indemnity bond,
either in his own name or jointly with
others till the matter is finally decided. It is
further submitted that for the other
conditions imposed vide order dated
16.3.2022, no objection or inability to
fulfill the same was shown by the applicant
rather he furnished an undertaking before
the Court concerned for compliance of all
the conditions imposed by the aforesaid
order. It is further submitted that in the
impugned order dated 10.3.2023, the
Sessions Judge, Meerut has narrated
several facts in respect of fraudulent and
criminal acts committed by the applicant
whereas he was directed not to repeat the
similar offence again. The impugned order
dated
10.3.2023
consists
of
many
illustrations which go to show that the
applicant has repeatedly committed the
same offence, commission of which was
made prohibited by condition no.6 imposed
by the Court concerned by order dated
16.3.2022. It is also submitted that from the
impugned order it also reflects that all the
orders of NCLT, whether passed prior to
16.3.2022 or subsequent thereto, have to be
complied with by the applicant. It is further
submitted that since the applicant never
made any submission before the Court
concerned regarding the unsustainability or
ambiguity of the said condition, it was an
estoppel against him and he was bound to
obey the aforesaid condition as well as the
other conditions imposed by the Court
concerned. On the basis of aforesaid
submissions, prayer has been made to reject
the present anticipatory bail application.

5. I have considered the rival
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties.

6. In this matter, from a perusal of the
record, it reveals that in the matter of
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 591 of 2022
in case crime no. 574 of 2019, under Sections
406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Medical
College, District Meerut applicant was granted
anticipatory bail vide order dated 16.3.2022
passed by the Sessions Judge, Meerut till end
of trial, however, certain conditions were
imposed upon the applicant while granting the
anticipatory bail to him. Subsequently, on an
application moved by the informant, the said
anticipatory bail was cancelled by the
impugned order dated 10.3.2023 passed by the
Sessions Judge, Meerut on the ground of
flouting of some of the conditions, which were
imposed upon the applicant while granting
anticipatory bail to him.

7. At the very outset, it is to be
determined
whether
the
order
dated
10.3.2023 whereby the anticipatory bail
granted to the applicant vide order dated
16.3.2022 was cancelled, is sustainable in
the eyes of law or not.
5 All. Manoj Kumar Bathla Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1841

8. From the perusal of the impugned
order, it is found that the learned Sessions
Judge, Meerut has emphasized on this
condition that the accused applicant is not
only flouting the orders of Sessions Court
but also of NCLT and for this observation,
the concerned Court has impressed upon
many factual aspects of the matter. The
Court has observed that the applicant is not
deliberately providing any record and
account and still misusing the bank
accounts of the Company to the detriment
of the complainant. It is also mentioned in
the said order that as the applicant is having
actual control on the Company of the
parties, he is passing the books of the
Company as the books of his private firm
and usurping the money received from sale
of such books. It has also been narrated in
the said order that after the grant of
anticipatory bail to the applicant the
Company
which
provided
accounting
software allegedly cancelled licence resulting
into the accounts becoming inaccessible and
the physical records were misplaced from the
scooter of the accused, the staff became noncooperative and the bank account of the
Company was being used by the accused
applicant as per his own convenience. It is
also mentioned in the impugned order that it
is clearly the act of accused to refuse
providing accounts and the record for proper
adjudication and in these circumstances the
Court cannot shut its eyes regarding
continuous violation and misuse of liberty of
the anticipatory bail by the accused.

In the impugned order dated 10.3.2023,
condition Nos. 6 and 8 have been emphasized
as non-complied with by the accused
applicant. The said conditions are as under :

"6-जो अजभयोग आवेदक पि लगाया गया है, वैसा ही
अन्य कोई अपिाध आवेदक कारित नहीं किेगा ।

8-यह fd आवेदक इस आशय की अUडिटेजकंग प्रस्तुत
किे fd एन .सी .एल. टी द्वािा पारित आदेश का पालन
सुजनजश्चत किता िहेगा "

9. So far as Condition No.6 is
concerned, it relates to any other offence of
the similar nature committed by the
applicant.

10. It is not in dispute that charge
sheet into the matter has been filed. In one
part of the impugned order, various
observations have been made by the
Sessions Judge, Meerut in respect of the
alleged violation of Condition No.6 by the
accused / applicant and while doing so the
Court concerned entered into the history of
dispute between the parties and a chain of
events has been sketched but it lacks a
cogent reasoning. This Court does not find
any
justification
in
the
aforesaid
observations made by the Sessions Judge,
Meerut capable of making the accused /
applicant
liable
for
violative
of
aforementioned Condition No.6. Whether
any criminal matter against the present
accused / applicant subsequent to the order
dated 10.3.2022, resulted into charge sheet,
is not clear from the impugned order.
Charge sheet has already been submitted in
the present case and now the trial is going
on before the Magistrate concerned. Thus,
to hold that the Condition No.6 imposed
vide order dated 10.3.2022 was violated by
the accused / applicant, is not correct.

11. As regards to Condition No.8
imposed vide order dated 16.3.2022, from
the perusal of the record, it transpires that
both the parties are business persons having
commercial company as a partnership firm
and litigations are going on before the
NCLT between them. Several orders have
been or are to be passed by the NCLT in the
1842 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
aforesaid matters. In the impugned order,
the Sessions Judge, Meerut has observed
that the accused applicant is working in
such a manner on account of which the
Company is going into loss and all the
working conditions have become hampered
due to lack of vigilance and inactivity on
the part of the applicant and he is
continuously violating the orders of NCLT,
already passed in the mater pending before
it between the parties.

12. This fact is also to be taken into
account that what orders to be passed by
the NCLT in future is not a subject
concerning to the Sessions Court sitting in
the forum of anticipatory bail. The NCLT in
itself is empowered to enforce its own
orders
under
the
provisions
of
the
Companies Act. The NCLT for the
execution of its orders or to meet out the
conditions, where its orders are flouted, is
not dependent upon any other forum /
Court and is competent enough to meet out
this contingency. Also, it was not a genuine
condition to ask the applicant to comply
with all previous orders, which were
already passed by the NCLT and which
might be subjudiced too in any higher
forum.

13. The aforesaid situation takes this
Court to the direction of considering as to
whether a Criminal Court may act like an
Executing Court for any other forum.

14. In Dilip Singh vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and another, (2021) 2
SCC 779, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that :

"A
criminal
court,
exercising
jurisdiction to grant bail / anticipatory
bail, is not expected to act as a recovery
agent
to
realise
the
dues
of
the
complainant, and that too, without any
trial."

15. This dictum was reitrated in
Udho Thakur and another vs. State of
Jharkhand
and
another,
2022
SCC
OnLIne SC 1712, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that :

"4. Even if we take the submissions of
the learned counsel for the contesting
respondent on its face value, we are clearly
of the view that in essence, the petitions
seeking relief of pre-arrest bail are not
money
recovery
proceedings
and,
ordinarily, there is no justification for
adopting such a course that for the purpose
of being given the concession of pre-arrest
bail, the person concerned apprehending
arrest has to make payment."

16. It has been further held that :

"Having regard to the circumstances,
in our view, the said condition of depositing
a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- for the purpose of
granting the relief of pre-arrest bail cannot
be approved and else, the order granting
bail deserves to be maintained."

17. In the light of the aforesaid
proposition of law, this Court is not
hesitant to hold that Condition No.8
imposed vide order dated 16.3.2022 is a
vague and ingenuine condition and not
sustainable as such.

18. In umpteen of cases, the Hon'ble
Apex Court as well as the High Courts
have laid down certain parameters to deal
with the matters pertaining to cancellation
of bail / anticipatory bail.

19. In Savitri Agarwal and others
vs. State of Maharashtra and another,
5 All. Manoj Kumar Bathla Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1843
(2009) 8 SCC 325, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has
held
that
very
cogent
and
overwhelming circumstances are necessary
for an order directing cancellation of bail
already granted. It has been further held
that rejection of bail in non-bailable case at
the initial stage and cancellation of bail are
required to be considered and dealt with on
different basis.

20. In Dolat Ram and others vs.
State of Haryana, (1995)1 SCC 349, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that :

"4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable
case
at
the
initial
stage
and
the
cancellation of bail so granted, have to be
considered and dealt with on different
basis. Very cogent and overwhelming
circumstances are necessary for an order
directing the cancellation of the bail,
already granted. Generally speaking, the
grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly
(illustrative and not exhaustive) are:
interference or attempt to interfere with the
due course of administration of justice or
evasion or attempt to evade the due course
of justice or abuse of the concession
granted to the accused in any manner. The
satisfaction of the court, on the basis of
material placed on the record of the
possibility of the accused absconding is yet
another reason justifying the cancellation
of bail. However, bail once granted should
not be cancelled in a mechanical manner
without
considering
whether
any
supervening circumstances have rendered it
no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow
the accused to retain his freedom by
enjoying the concession of bail during the
trial........"

21. On the subject, the Delhi High in
Charu Soneja vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
and others (Criminal M.C. 2050 of 2021),
decided on 3.1.2022 has held like this :

"17. There is a significant difference
between an order rejecting an application
for bail and an order for cancellation of
bail. An order rejecting a plea for bail in
non-bailable offences is in the discretionary
domain of the court and such a case can be
decided without delving into details, it can
be rejected simpliciter on the gravity of the
offence and the perception that liberty, if
granted, will be abused by the accused.
Whereas in the case of cancellation, the
court is called upon to extinguish the
liberty that has been formerly granted. A
Court
must
tread
with
utmost
circumspection, and only after an in-depth
examination of the situation and new
emergent facts and on finding supervening
circumstances and overwhelming evidence
that the accused has been abusing the
liberty granted to him by the court, should
the court then exercise its jurisdiction in
seizing the liberty of an accused undertrial.
Another reason for the court to be more
circumspect in setting aside an order
granting bail is that, it involves review of a
well considered, reasoned judicial order
granting bail. Personal liberty is one of the
cherished constitutional freedoms. Once
granted to an accused pending completion of
the trial, it must only be retracted in the face
of grave and exacerbating circumstances.
The party challenging bail already given
needs to demonstrate, by showing evidence
and instances, that the person enlarged on
bail has been threatening the victim and may
consequently cause personal harm to the
victim or her family, is tampering with
evidence
or
influencing
prosecution
witnesses to the extent that it would vitiate
the trial and lead to a miscarriage of
justice."
1844 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

22. The Court finds some illustrative
grounds in Raghubir Singh and others vs.
State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481 over this
issue wherein it was observed that "it is
pertinent to mention here that bail can be
cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his
liberty by indulging in similar criminal
activity, (ii) interferes with the course of
investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with
evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens
witnesses or indulges in similar activities
which would hamper smooth investigation,
(v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to
another country, (vi) attempts to make
himself scarce by going underground or
becoming unavailable to the investigating
agency, (vii) attempts to place himself
beyond the reach of his surety, etc. The
above grounds are illustrative and not
exhaustive. It must also be remembered that
rejection of bail stands on one footing but
cancellation of bail is a harsh order
because it interferes with the liberty of the
individual and hence it must not be lightly
resorted to."

23. The impugned order is not clear
on the point as to how the Court concerned
came to the conclusion that a fair trial is not
possible if the accused is allowed to retain
his freedom of anticipatory bail during trial.
It also reveals that the Court concerned
travelled beyond its jurisdiction and placed
reliance upon the materials outside the
record which were not relevant at that
stage. How the Court concerned was sure
that the applicant was trying to win over
the witnesses of the case and in this way
the fair trial of the case was not possible is
an issue which remains illusive in the
impugned order.

24. In view of the aforesaid
discussions and the law governing the
subject, the Court is of the opinion that the
impugned order dated 10.3.2023 passed by
the
Sessions
Judge,
Meerut
is
not
sustainable in law and the same is liable to
be set-aside. The impugned order dated
10.3.2023 is accordingly set-aside.

25. So far as the question of grant of
anticipatory bail to the applicant is
concerned, it is evident from the perusal of
the record that during the course of
investigation, anticipatory bail was granted
to the applicant by the Additional Sessions
Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut
vide order dated 30.7.2021. The order dated
16.3.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge,
Meerut also verifies this fact that the said
liberty was not misused by the applicant till
filing of the police report under Section
173(2) CrPC before the Competent Court.
After filing of the charge sheet in the
matter, no custodial interrogation from the
applicant appears to be required in the facts
and circumstances of the present case. The
dispute between the parties relates to
financial transactions, which took place
between them regarding the Company of
the informant and the applicant in the name
of
'G.R.
Bathla
Publications
Private
Limited' and in this respect F.I.R. was
lodged regarding embezzlement of Rs. 6.5
Crores against the applicant. It was alleged
in the F.I.R. that the money of the
Company was illegally deposited by the
applicant in the bank accounts of his sons
Sugam Bathla and Madhur Bathla, wife
Rachna Bathla and in his own bank account
on different dates. It also reveals from the
perusal of the record that the dispute
between the parties is still pending before
the NCLT and several directions have been
issued by the NCLT to the parties in the
matter.

26. In Sushila Aggarwal and others
vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another,
5 All. Manoj Kumar Bathla Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1845
(2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has settled the controversy finally by
holding the anticipatory bail need not be of
limited duration invariably. In appropriate
case, it can continue upto conclusion of
trial.

27. It has been further held therein
that
anticipatory
bail
granted
can,
depending on the conduct and behavior of
the accused, continue after filing of the
charge sheet till end of trial.

28. It has been further held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering
an application for grant of anticipatory bail,
the court has to consider the nature of the
offence, the role of the person, the
likelihood of his influencing the course of
investigation, or tampering with evidence
including intimidating witnesses, likelihood
of fleeing justice, such as leaving the
country, etc. It has further been held that
Courts ought to be generally guided by
considerations such as the nature and
gravity of the offences, the role attributed
to the applicant, and the facts of the case,
while
considering
whether
to
grant
anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to
grant or not is a matter of discretion.

29. Considering the settled principles
of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of
accusation, role of applicant and all
attending facts and circumstances of the
case, without expressing any opinion of the
merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit
case for anticipatory bail to the applicant
till the end of trial.

30. In the event of arrest of the
applicant in Criminal Case No. 23164 of
2021 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468,
471 IPC, Police Station Medical College,
District Sambhal, he shall be released on
anticipatory bail on his furnishing a
personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two
sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Court concerned with the
following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall make himself
available before the Court concerned on the date
fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial.

(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/her from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
office.

(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.

(iv) In case of default of any of the
conditions, the same may be a ground for
cancellation of protection granted to the
applicant.

31. With the above observations, the
anticipatory
bail
application
stands
disposed of accordingly.

Criminal
Misc.
Correction
Application No.4 of 2023.

1. This is an application for correction
in the order dated 24.4.2023.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that due to inadvertence district
"Meerut" has wrongly been transcribed as
"Sambhal" in the 8th line of paragraph 1
and
just
above
the
conditions
of
anticipatory bail in the order dated
24.4.2023.

3. In view of the aforesaid, the
application is allowed. The order dated
24.4.2023
is
corrected
and
district
1846 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
"Sambhal" is deleted and replaced by
"Meerut" in the 8th line of paragraph 1
and
just
above
the
conditions
of
anticipatory bail.

4. This order in the correction
application shall form part of the order
dated 24.4.2023.

5. The application is, accordingly,
disposed of.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1846
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 4560
of 2023
(u/s 438 Cr.P.C.)

Udit Arya ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Jitendra Prasad, Sri Satya Prakash Rai, Sri
C.L. Pandey (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Sri Anil Mullick

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973- Section 438 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 498-A - 304-B - 3⁄4
Dowry Prohibition Act- demand of car
and money in dowry- abortion of foetus-
deceased succumbed to injuries- discord
in the family was an admitted factdeceased was living at her parental
home for substantial time-abortion also
took
place
at
her
parental
homeprosecution cannot be converted into an
arena to settle scores-death cannot be
termed
as
"not
under
normal
circumstances"-ingredients of Section
304-B
IPC-misuse
of
dowry
lawsSections 82 and 438 CrPC do not impose
any restriction on filing of anticipatory
bail application by proclaimed offender-
Bail application allowed. (Paras 13 to
19)

HELD: Although a second bail application on
behalf of the accused is not barred and is
maintainable
but
considerations
of
the
grounds of bail are the factors to be taken
into account in it. A second bail application is
always considered on fresh and new grounds
available to the accused after rejection of the
first bail application. It cannot be said that a
second
bail
application
would
not
be
maintainable. The maintainability of such bail
application is there but consideration of the
prayer for bail is subject to the availability of
fresh and new grounds which if not available
would render reviewing the earlier order
rejecting the bail application. In the case of
Babu
Singh
(supra),
the
Court
was
considering a bail application of an accused
who was acquitted by the Sessions Court
against which the St.had filed an appeal
against acquittal in the High Court which was
successful and the findings of the Sessions
Judge were reversed holding the accused
persons guilty and sentencing them for the
offences. Against the said judgment and order
of the High Court, a statutory appeal was
carried to the Apex Court. Before the Apex
Court, a second bail application was filed
which was the consideration in which the said
judgment and order has been passed. The
Apex Court with regards to the maintainability
of a second bail application held that an order
refusing an application for bail does not
necessarily preclude another, on a later
occasion, giving more materials, further
developments and different considerations.
(Para 13)

In so far as the part of the maintainability of a
second bail application is concerned, it is no
more res-integra that the same is maintainable.
The question which arises is whether without
any fresh new and changed circumstances, a
Court should consider a subsequent bail
application ignoring its previous order rejecting
the previous bail application or not. (Para 16)