# Ravi Shankar Pandey v. State & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 479
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Appl. No. 13956 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravi-shankar-pandey-v-state-ors-opp-parties-49076
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B,
409, 420, 467, 468 & 471- Prevention of
Corruption Act,1988 - Section 13 (2) R/W
13 (1) (C) & (D) -if any employee of the
Government/
Corporation/
Instrumentality of the Government/ any
Bank
etc.
co-operates
with
the
investigation
-
does
not
flout
the
directions of the Investigating Agency -
with
his/her/
their
co-operation
the
investigation is completed - charge-sheet
is filed, his/ her/ their arrest may not be
warranted only for the reason that the
charge-sheet has been filed unless the
learned trial court is having any cogent
reason to take him/ her/ them into
custody.(Para -12 13)

Issue relating to forgery and fraud - in respect
of Kisan Credit Cards - given benefit to some
fake borrowers - Applicant not named in F.I.R. -
no allegation levelled against him - Bank
employee of Clerical Job - co-operated with the
investigation properly - charge-sheet has been
filed. (Para - 4,16 )

HELD:-Liberty of applicant protected. Applicant
shall be released on anticipatory bail till
conclusion of trial proceedings. (Para -20,21)

Anticipatory bail appliction allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

9 All. Ravi Shankar Pandey Vs. State & Ors.
479
document knowing fully well that the same
were bogus as reflected in the documents
presented before IOB, Kanpur.

35. Looking into the overall facts and
circumstances of the above discussion, on
the issue of economic offence up to the
tune of Rs.10.01 crores, and the role of the
applicant who was looking after day to day
affairs of the Company, I do not find that it
is a fit case for anticipatory bail.

36. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail
application is rejected.

37. However, the court below will not
be influenced, in any manner, by the
observations made by this Court.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 479
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Appl. No. 13956
of 2021

Ravi Shankar Pandey ...Applicant
Versus
State & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ashok Kumar Mishra Baled, Vimal Kumar

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Anurag Kumar Singh

(A) Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B,
409, 420, 467, 468 & 471- Prevention of
Corruption Act,1988 - Section 13 (2) R/W
13 (1) (C) & (D) -if any employee of the
Government/
Corporation/
Instrumentality of the Government/ any
Bank
etc.
co-operates
with
the
investigation
-
does
not
flout
the
directions of the Investigating Agency -
with
his/her/
their
co-operation
the
investigation is completed - charge-sheet
is filed, his/ her/ their arrest may not be
warranted only for the reason that the
charge-sheet has been filed unless the
learned trial court is having any cogent
reason to take him/ her/ them into
custody.(Para -12 13)

Issue relating to forgery and fraud - in respect
of Kisan Credit Cards - given benefit to some
fake borrowers - Applicant not named in F.I.R. -
no allegation levelled against him - Bank
employee of Clerical Job - co-operated with the
investigation properly - charge-sheet has been
filed. (Para - 4,16 )

HELD:-Liberty of applicant protected. Applicant
shall be released on anticipatory bail till
conclusion of trial proceedings. (Para -20,21)

Anticipatory bail appliction allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Joginder Kumar Vs St. of U. P. , (1994) 4 SCC
260

2. Siddharth Vs St. of U.P. & anr. , (2021) 1
SCC 676

3. Aman Preet Singh Vs C.B.I. through Director,
Criminal Appeal No.929 of 2021

4. Sushila Aggarwal Vs St. (NCT of Delhi)-2020
SCC online SC 98

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the opposite parties-C.B.I.

2. This anticipatory bail application
has been preferred by the applicant (Ravi
Shankar Pandey) apprehending his arrest in
480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
R.C.
No.2(A)/2020
(R.C.
No.0062020A0002/2020),
C.C.
No.310/2021, C.B.I. vs. Prakash Chandra
Vidhyarthi & Ors, under Sections 120-B,
409, 420, 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C. and
Section 13 (2) R/W 13 (1) (C) & (D) of
P.C. Act, 1988.

3.

Learned
counsel
for
the
applicant has submitted that the present
applicant has been falsely implicated in
the aforementioned case as he has not
committed any offence as alleged in the
prosecution story so narrated in the First
Information Report (in short F.I.R.).

4.

Learned
counsel
for
the
applicant has further submitted that the
present applicant was not named in the
F.I.R. dated 09.01.2020 (Annexure No.1)
and he has not committed any offence.
The present applicant is serving on the
post of Senior Customer Assistant
(Level-II), State Bank of India, A.P. Sen
Road Branch, Lucknow. The issue is
relating to forgery and fraud from the
year 2014 to 2017 in respect of Kisan
Credit Cards. During investigation it has
been found that some fake borrowers
have been given benefit of Kisan Credit
Card and the documents of those
borrowers were found to be forged. The
sanctioning authority of the said loan
was one Sri K.K. Srivastava, Manager of
the Branch whereas the duty attributed
to the present applicant was to feed the
data.

5. The attention has been drawn
towards the appraisal/ assessment of
such loan which has been annexed with
the supplementary affidavit wherein the
signatures of the Manager Sri K.K.
Srivastava
as
well
as
the present
applicant have been shown.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant
has submitted that during investigation the
present applicant has co-operated with the
Investigating Authority and has followed
the process of law. He always appeared
before the Investigating Officer as and
when he was called and submitted his
explanation in respect of his bonafide. He
has submitted that the applicant was not the
sanctioning authority and he was not
having any ulterior motive inasmuch as
nothing incriminating has been recovered
from possession of the present applicant.

7. The charge-sheet has been filed
against the present applicant as well as the
then Manager Sri K.K. Srivastava. Besides,
as per learned counsel for the applicant, the
investigation is going on against Sri Anshul
Mehdi Ratta and Sri Awadhesh Kumar
Srivastava the then Managers of the State
Bank of India and some unknown persons.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant
has further submitted that the present
applicant is an employee within the
category of Level-II. The C.B.I. has never
issued any coercive steps against him since
lodging of the F.I.R. on 09.01.2020 for the
reason that he has co-operated in the
investigation. Now, the charge-sheet has
been filed.

9. Since he is an employee of State
Bank of India, therefore, there is no
likelihood of his absconding and he shall
further co-operate with the proceedings. He
has further submitted that any reasonable
condition may be imposed against him but
his liberty may be protected till conclusion
of the proceedings.

10. Per contra, Sri Anurag Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for the C.B.I. has
submitted that this is the case wherein the
9 All. Ravi Shankar Pandey Vs. State & Ors.
481
fraud and forgery has been committed by
some fake persons with the collusion of
some
Bank
Officers/
Officials.
The
investigation against the present applicant
and the then Manager Sri K.K. Srivastava
(since retired) has been completed and
charge-sheet has been filed but against
some other officers of the Bank it is still
going on.

11. Sri Singh has however submitted
that the present applicant has co-operated
with the investigation, therefore, he has not
been arrested till filing of the charge-sheet
but he is duty bound to appear before the
learned trial court to face the trial
proceedings.

12. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the material
available on the record, I am of the
considered opinion that if any employee of
the
Government/
Corporation/
Instrumentality of the Government/ any
Bank etc. co-operates with the investigation
and does not flout the directions of the
Investigating Agency and with his/her/ their
co-operation the investigation is completed
and the charge-sheet is filed, his/ her/ their
arrest may not be warranted only for the
reason that the charge-sheet has been filed
unless the learned trial court is having any
cogent reason to take him/ her/ them into
custody.

13. In the judgment of Apex Court
rendered in re: Joginder Kumar vs. State
of Utter Pradesh reported in (1994) 4
SCC 260 wherein it has been observed that
arrest is not mandatory if an accused person
co-operates with the investigation as well
as in the trial proceedings unless there is
any specific or cogent reason to arrest him.
The issuance of direction regarding arrest is
the prerogative of the learned trial court
concerned but such discretion should not be
unreasoned inasmuch as the liberty of any
person, which is guaranteed under Article
21 of the Constitution of India, may not be
compromised
in
a
cursory
manner.
Therefore, before issuing such order to
arrest such person the settled proposition of
law and the parameters so fixed by the
Apex Court should be considered.

14. The Apex Court in re: Siddharth
vs. State of U.P. and another reported in
(2021) 1 SCC 676 has observed as under:

"We are in agreement with the
aforesaid view of the High Courts and
would like to give out imprimatur to the
said judicial view. It has rightly been
observed on consideration of Section 170
of the Cr.P.C. that it does not impose an
obligation on the Officer-in-charge to
arrest each and every accused at the time
of filing of the charge-sheet. We have, in
fact, some across cases where the accued
has co-operated with the investigation
throughout and yet on the charge-sheet
being filed non-bailable warrants have
been issued for his production premised on
the requirement that there is an obligation
to arrest the accused and produce him
before the court. We are of the view that if
the Investigating Officer does not believe
that the accused will abscond or disobey
summons he/ she is not required to be
produced in custody. The word "custody"
appearing in Section 170 of the Cr.P.C.
does not contemplate either police or
judicial custody but it merely connotes the
presentation
of
the
accused
by
the
Investigating Officer before the court while
filing the charge-sheet."
 (emphasis supplied)

15. The Apex Court in re: Aman
Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director,
482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Criminal Appeal No.929 of 2021 has
observed as under:

"Insofar as the present case is
concerned and the general principels under
Section 170 Cr.P.C., the most apposite
observations are in sub-para (v) of the
High Court judgment in the context of an
accused in a non-bailable offence whose
custody was not required during the period
of investigation. In such a scenario, it is
appropriate that the accused is released on
bail as the circumstances of his having not
been arrested during investigation or not
being produced in custody is itself sufficient
to entitled him to be released on bail. The
rationale has been succinctly set out that if
a person has been enlarged and free for
many years and has bot even been arrested
during investigation, to suddenly direct his
arrest and to be incarcerated merely
because charge-sheet has been filed would
be contrary to the governing principles for
grant of bail. We could not agree more with
this."

 (emphasis supplied)

16. In the present case, what has been
demonstrated in the material available on
record that initially in the F.I.R. the present
applicant was not named as no allegation
was levelled against him. He is a Bank
employee of Clerical Job (which comes
within the category of Levell-II) who has
co-operated with the investigation properly
and thereafter the charge-sheet has been
filed.

17. As per learned counsel for the
applicant, the present applicant is giving
undertaking that he shall appear before the
learned court below/ trial court and shall
face the trial proceedings. He shall not seek
any unnecessary adjournments and shall
not adopt any delayed tactics.

18. It is made clear that at any time if
the learned trial court finds it necessary for
any cogent and obvious reason that custody
of the present applicant would be warranted
in the interest of justice, he can pass such
order but that order should not be passed in
a mechanical exercise and the directions so
given by the Apex Court in re: Joginder
Kumar (supra), Siddharth (supra) and
Aman Preet Singh (supra) shall be abide
by being the law of the land.

19. Since this case has been
investigated by the C.B.I. and a regular
presence of the applicant would be required
by the learned trial court, therefore, I find it
appropriate in the interest of justice that if
the present applicant is having any passport, the same shall be surrendered by him
before the learned trial court and such passport shall be kept by the learned trial court
till conclusion of the trial and may be
handed over to the present applicant earlier
only after any order having been passed by
the learned trial court or by the Superior
Court.

20. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and also in view of the
dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in
re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98, I find it
appropriate that liberty of the present
applicant may be protected till conclusion
of trial proceedings subject to the following
conditions.

21. Therefore, without entering into
merits of the issue, it is directed that in the
event of arrest, applicant, Ravi Shankar
Pandey, shall be released on anticipatory
bail in the aforesaid case crime number, till
conclusion of trial proceedings on his
furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-
with two sureties each in the like amount to
9 All. Anil Kumar Nanda Vs. State of U.P.
483
the satisfaction of the arresting authority/
court
concerned
with
the
following
conditions:-

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

2. 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 his
from disclosing such facts to the court or to
any police officer or tamper with the
evidence;

3. that the applicant shall not leave
India without prior permission of the court;

4.
that
the
applicant
shall
not
pressurize/
intimidate
the
prosecution
witness;

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

6. that in case of breach of any of the
above conditions the court below shall have
the liberty to cancel the bail;

7. that in case the charge-sheet is
submitted the applicant shall not tamper
with evidence during trial;

8. that in default of any of the
conditions
mentioned
above,
the
investigating officer shall be at liberty to
file appropriate application for cancellation
of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

22. In view of the aforesaid terms, the
instant anticipatory bail application is
allowed
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 483
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 36197 of 2021

Anil Kumar Nanda ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Sri Arya Suman Pandey,
Sri Mritunjay Dwivedi, Ms. Sufia Saba

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Ashok Kumar Lal, Sri Kundan Rai, Sri
Uday Pratap Singh

(A) Criminal Law - Bail - economic
offences - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 A,
204, 120 B - The Information Technology
Act, 2000 - Sections 66 C and 66 D -
Jurisdictional Magistrate who otherwise
has the jurisdiction to try a criminal case
which
provides
for
a
maximum
punishment
of
either
life
or
death
sentence, has got ample jurisdiction to
consider the release on bail - there cannot
be any parity in rejecting an application
for grant of bail. (Para -15,24)

an embezzlement of an amount of Rs.
11,83,35,436.27/- - no criminal history - not
arrested - surrendered - undergone more than
15 months' incarceration - offences triable by
Magistrate - charge sheet submitted - services
terminated through a resolution - not in a
position to tamper with evidence - No material
placed by informant Bank to doubt. (Para -
3,27)

(B) Criminal Law - basic jurisprudence
relating to bail in economic offences -
remains same - grant of bail is the rule
and refusal is the exception - to ensure
that accused has opportunity of securing
fair trial - not advisable to categorize all
the economic offences into one group and
deny bail on that basis - Even if the
allegation is one of grave economic
offence - not a rule that bail should be
denied in every case - no bar created in
relevant enactment passed by legislature,
nor does bail jurisprudence provide so -
right to bail is not to be denied merely