# Siddh Narain Sharma v. Asst. Director, Directorate of Enforcement Lko & Ors. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 321
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-23
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Appl. U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 1105 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/siddh-narain-sharma-v-asst-director-directorate-of-enforcement-lko-ors-opp-party-47721
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Law
-
Prevention
of
Money
Laundering Act, 2002- Section 3/4-FIR
lodged-no
chargesheet
against
Applicantnothing
incriminating
-even
then
E.D.
summoned the present Applicant couple of
times for recording St.ment and producing
evidence-no independent investigation by E.D.-
investigation by C.B.I. reiterated by the E.D.-
Applicant co-operated with the investigation
and not flouted the process.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

10 All. Siddh Narain Sharma Vs. Asst. Director, Directorate of Enforcement Lko & Ors.
321
and lawful. The arguments tendered on
behalf of the applicant are not based on
concrete facts but are vague and general.
The case is not fit for the anticipatory bail.

24.

The
medical
practitioner
administer an oath at the time of
convocation as provided by Indian Medical
Association which is an extension of
Hippocratic oath taken the world over. The
oath is not merely a formality. It has to be
observed and followed in letter and spirit. It
is on these lines that the apex medical
education
regulator,
National
Medical
Commission
has
suggested
that
the
Hippocratic oath be replaced by 'CHARAK
SHAPATH'
during
the
convocation
ceremony
for
graduates
in
medical
services. The medical and legal fields are
more a service than a profession especially
the stream of oncology which deals with
life and death.

25. Corruption is a termite in every
system. Once it enters the system, it goes
on increasing. Today, it is rampant and has
become a routine. Corruption is root cause
of all the problems, such as poverty,
unemployment,
illiteracy,
pollution,
external
threats,
underdevelopment,
inequality, social unrest. The menace has to
be put to account. The offence is against the
society. The Court has to balance the
fundamental rights of the accused to the
legitimate concerns of the society at large
vis-a-vis the investigating agency.

26. The task of the Court is manifold.
Firstly, it has to ensure that there is no
unwarranted misuse or abuse of process to
encroach upon life and liberty of the
applicant as enshrined under Article 21 of
the Constitution. Secondly, it has to seen
that the Rule of law is followed and the
administration of justice is not hampered,
the guilty is brought to book.

27. In view of the above, the present
anticipatory bail application is dismissed.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 321
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Appl. U/s 438 Cr.P.C.
No. 1105 of 2022

Siddh Narain Sharma ...Applicant
Versus
Asst. Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Lko & Ors. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Purnendu Chakravarty, Anuuj Taandon

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
A.G.A., Kuldeep Srivastava, Shiv P. Shukla

Civil
Law
-
Prevention
of
Money
Laundering Act, 2002- Section 3/4-FIR
lodged-no
chargesheet
against
Applicantnothing
incriminating
-even
then
E.D.
summoned the present Applicant couple of
times for recording St.ment and producing
evidence-no independent investigation by E.D.-
investigation by C.B.I. reiterated by the E.D.-
Applicant co-operated with the investigation
and not flouted the process.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate Vs
V.C. Mohan, Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2022
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8441 of 2021)

2. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & ors. Vs U.O.I. &
ors., in its judgment dated 27.07.2022 passed in
322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.4634 of
2014

3. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & ors. vs U.O.I. &
ors. [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.4634
of 2014]

4. Parvathi Kollur & anr. Vs St. by Directorate of
Enforcement [Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2022]

5. Rajeev Wadhwa Vs U.O.I. Thru. Joint Dir.
Directorate of Enforcement [Bail No.5867 of
2016]

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

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

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

9. Sushila Aggarwal Vs St. (NCT of Delhi), 2020
SCC online SC 98
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Purnendu Chakravarty,
learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the
Enforcement Directorate, the opposite
party.

2. As per learned counsel for the
applicant,
the
present
applicant
is
apprehending his arrest in Complaint Case
No.1003
of
2021
in
ECIR
No.ECIR/01/LKZO/2018
dated
18.02.2018, under Sections 3/4 of the
Prevention of Money-Laundering Act,
2002, Police Station - Directorate of
Enforcement, Lucknow.

3. Counter affidavit and rejoinder
affidavit have been filed and the parties
have requested that the matter may be
heard and disposed of finally.

4. Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned
counsel for the applicant has submitted that
the present applicant is a retired Chief
Engineer. One FIR was lodged by the
Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter
referred to as "CBI") on 30.11.2017 at RC26A/2017
against
so
many
persons
including the present applicant. The CBI
has filed charge sheet against so many
persons but no charge sheet has been filed
against the present applicant as nothing
incriminating has been found against him
by the CBI.

5. As per Sri Chakravarty, the
Enforcement
Directorate
(hereinafter
referred to as "E.D.") lodged one ECIR
No.01/LKZO/2018 on 18.02.2018 pursuant
to the FIR and investigation so carried out
by the CBI in the year 2017. In such
complaint, E.D. investigated the aspect
relating to money laundering against all
persons either have been charge sheeted by
the CBI or have not been charge sheeted by
the CBI. However, nothing incriminating
has been received from the possession of
the
present
applicant
and
nothing
incriminating was found by the CBI against
the present applicant, even then the E.D.
summoned the present applicant couple of
times for recording his statement and
producing material. Specific recital to this
effect has been given in para-16 of the
application wherein the applicant has
indicated the dates when the applicant
appeared before the investigating agency
i.e. E.D. and recorded his statement under
Section 50 of the Prevention of MoneyLaundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred
to as "PMLA, 2002") i.e. 25.05.2018,
07.06.2018, 26.06.2018, 23.07.2018 and
19.06.2019. Sri Chakravarty has submitted
that the E.D. has recorded statements of
various persons including one Sri Amit
Yadav, the Contractor, on various dates i.e.
10 All. Siddh Narain Sharma Vs. Asst. Director, Directorate of Enforcement Lko & Ors.
323
29.01.2019 and 05.02.2019. As per E.D.,
the said Contractor Sri Amit Yadav has
stated in his statement dated 29.01.2019
and 05.02.2019 that he (Sri Amit Yadav)
had withdrawn a sum of Rs.15 lakh in cash
through his "self cheque" and he paid this
amount to the present applicant. Sri
Chakravarty has submitted that except the
aforesaid statement of Sri Amit Yadav, the
Contractor, E.D. is having no material to
suggest that there was any involvement of
the present applicant in the instant matter.
Sri Chakravarty has further submitted that
there was no eye witness to say that the
aforesaid amount of Rs.15 lakh has been
given to the present applicant by Sri Amit
Yadav.
Besides,
after
the
aforesaid
statement of Sri Amit Yadav being recorded
by the E.D. on 29.01.2019 and 05.02.2019,
the present applicant was summoned to
record his statement under Section 50 of
the PMLA, 2002 on 19.06.2019, but the
present applicant has not been confronted
with such statement of Sri Amit Yadav and
no question relating to such alleged
transaction has been asked from the present
applicant. Therefore, that material i.e. the
statement of Sri Amit Yadav dated
29.01.2019 and 05.02.2019 may not, prima
facie, be treated as sufficient material to
suggest that such amount has been
withdrawn by Sri Yadav to make payment
the same to the present applicant. As per Sri
Chakravarty, the Bank Accounts etc. of the
present applicant have been investigated by
the E.D. and the aforesaid allegation of Sri
Yadav has not been corroborated. The
applicant has not been named as an accused
in the charge sheet arising out of the FIR
No.RC-26A/2017
and no
independent
investigation has been conducted by the
E.D. as the investigation conducted by the
CBI is reiterated in the complaint filed by
the E.D.

6. Therefore, as per Sri Chakravarty,
if the applicant has not been named as an
accused in the charge sheet arising out of
the FIR No.RC-26A/2017 of CBI predicate
offence and no independent investigation
has been conducted by the E.D. as the
investigation conducted by the CBI is
reiterated in the complaint filed by the
E.D., the present applicant may not be
implicated, only on the basis of statement
of one co-accused Sri Amit Yadav against
whom the CBI has filed charge sheet, in
absence of any corroborative evidence.

7. Not only the above, when the
present applicant has cooperated with the
investigation so conducted by the CBI and
never flouted the process of law, then no
adverse inference of any kind whatsoever
may be drawn against him. Despite being
not charge sheeted by the CBI, the present
applicant always appeared before the E.D.
to record his statement on each and every
date. The present applicant has not been
confronted by the E.D. in respect of the
statement so given by Sri Amit Yadav
against the present applicant, therefore, the
E.D. may not implicate the present
applicant in the present case in any manner
whatsoever. The present applicant is an old
aged retired Government Officer, who is
having no criminal history of any kind
whatsoever and there is no possibility of
the applicant to flee from justice, therefore,
there may not be any requirement for his
custodial interrogation. Hence, as per Sri
Chakravarty, liberty of the present applicant
may be protected till conclusion of the trial
proceedings pending before the learned
trial
court
as
the
present
applicant
undertakes that he shall cooperate with the
proceedings pending before the learned
trial court and shall not misuse the liberty
of bail, if so granted.
324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. Per contra, Sri Kuldeep Srivastava,
learned counsel for the opposite party has
opposed the aforesaid prayer of Sri
Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for
the applicant. Sri Srivastava has submitted
that bail application of one co-accused,
namely, Roop Singh Yadav, who has filed
his regular bail application before this
Court
bearing
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No.1831 of 2022, has been
rejected on 29.04.2022, therefore, the
anticipatory bail application of the present
applicant may be rejected and he may be
directed to file his regular bail application.
He has also submitted that the present
applicant while serving on the post of Chief
Engineer did not follow the financial rules
to deposit the centage charges whereas the
due amount was Rs.71 crore. Sri Srivastava
has also pressed the statement of Sri Amit
Yadav, the Contractor, dated 29.01.2019
and 05.02.2019 wherein such Contractor
has stated that he had withdrawn a sum of
Rs.15 lakh cash from the Bank through his
"self cheque" and paid this amount to the
present applicant.

9. However, on being confronted Sri
Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the
opposite party as to whether the present
applicant has been asked/ confronted on such
statement of Sri Amit Yadav when the
statement of the present applicant was
recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA,
2002 on 19.06.2019, Sri Srivastava has fairly
submitted that the present applicant has not
been confronted/ asked on such statement of
Sri Amit Yadav, the Contractor. On being
further confronted Sri Srivastava as to
whether on the basis of aforesaid statement of
Sri Amit Yadav anything incriminating has
been recovered from the possession of the
present applicant or found by the E.D., no
satisfactory reply could be given by the
learned counsel for the opposite party. Sri
Srivastava has also been asked a pin point
query to the effect that when the CBI has not
charge sheeted the present applicant where
the applicant was accused in the FIR and the
E.D. has not conducted any independent
investigation except to reiterate the charge
sheet filed by the CBI; as to what material
has been recovered by the E.D. to implicate
the present applicant in the present case of
E.D., Sri Srivastava has only reiterated the
aforesaid submission that on the basis of the
statement of Sri Amit Yadav, the Contractor,
the present applicant has been implicated.
However, he could not demonstrate any
material/ document to show that the present
applicant has been confronted on the
statement of Sri Amit Yadav, the Contractor.

10. Thereafter, Sri Srivastava has raised
one legal submission referring Section 45 of
the PMLA, 2002 wherein Sub Section (1) (i)
& (ii) lays down the following conditions:-

"45. Offences to be cognizable and
non-bailable.?(1)
[Notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person
accused of an offence [punishable for a
term of imprisonment of more than three
years under Part A of the Schedule] shall
be released on bail or on his own bond
unless?]

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been
given an opportunity to oppose the
application for such release; and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor
opposes the application, the court is
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds
for believing that he is not guilty of such
offence and that he is not likely to commit
any offence while on bail:"

11. As per Sri Srivastava, the Apex
Court
in
re;
Assistant
Director,
Enforcement
Directorate
vs.
V.C.
10 All. Siddh Narain Sharma Vs. Asst. Director, Directorate of Enforcement Lko & Ors.
325
Mohan, Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2022
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8441 of
2021), observed as under:-

"......It is one thing to say that Section
45 of the PMLA Act to offences under the
ordinary law would not get attracted but
once the prayer for anticipatory bail is
made in connection with offence under the
PMLA Act, the underlying principles and
rigors of Section 45 of the PMLA Act must
get triggered - although the application is
under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure....."

 (emphasis supplied)

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. Vs. Union of
India & Ors, in its judgment dated
27.07.2022 passed in Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No.4634 of 2014, observed as
under:-

"......As a result, we have no hesitation in
observing that in whatever form the relief is
couched including the nature of proceedings, be
it under Section 438 of the 1973 Code or for
that matter, by invoking the jurisdiction of the
Constitutional Court, the underlying principles
and rigors of Section 45 of the 2002 must come
into play and without exception ought to be
reckoned to uphold the objectives of the 2002
Act, which is a special legislation providing for
stringent regulatory measures for combating
the menace of money-laundering....."

 (emphasis supplied)

13. Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned
counsel
for
the
opposite
party
has
submitted that the present anticipatory bail
application may be rejected.

14. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material available
on record.

15. At the very outset, I would like to
observe that this is a case wherein FIR
No.RC-26A/2017 has been lodged by the
CBI wherein so many persons including the
present applicant were accused but after
thorough investigation by the CBI, no
charge sheet has been filed against the
present applicant, meaning thereby nothing
incriminating has been recovered from the
possession of the present applicant nor
found during investigation. Notably, the
present applicant has properly cooperated
with the investigation being conducted by
the CBI and has never flouted the process
of law. Thereafter, on the basis of aforesaid
investigation of the CBI, E.D. started
recording statement of some persons
including the present applicant as no
independent
investigation
has
been
conducted by the E.D. and the present
applicant has been summoned to record his
statement under Section 50 of the PMLA,
2002 on various dates i.e. 25.05.2018,
07.06.2018, 26.06.2018, 23.07.2018 and
19.06.2019. It is not a case of the E.D. that
the present applicant has ever flouted the
process of the law or he did not appear to
record his statement on the aforesaid dates.
The present applicant has been implicated
on the basis of statement of one Sri Amit
Yadav, the Contractor, which was recorded
by the E.D. on 29.01.2019 and 05.02.2019
wherein he has stated that he had
withdrawn a sum of Rs.15 lakh cash from
the Bank through his "self cheque" and
paid this amount to the present applicant
but there is no eye witness/ witness/
document of any kind whatsoever to
suggest that the aforesaid sum of Rs.15
lakh has been given to the present
applicant.
Even
after
recording
the
aforesaid statement of Sri Amit Yadav on
29.01.2019 and 05.02.2019, the present
applicant was summoned on 19.06.2019 to
record his statement under Section 50 of
326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the PMLA, 2002, but he has not been
confronted on the aforesaid statement of Sri
Yadav nor anything has been asked from
the
present
applicant
regarding
the
aforesaid statement of Sri Amit Yadav.
Therefore, even if one Contractor in the
name of Sri Amit Yadav has levelled any
allegation against the present applicant, the
same allegation has not been verified from
the present applicant during investigation.
As a matter of fact, no exercise has been
carried out by the E.D. to collect any
corroborative evidence.

16. Since no material has been filed
with the counter affidavit of the opposite
party to suggest that the allegation so
levelled against the present applicant by Sri
Amit Yadav, the Contractor, has been
verified or corroborated and during the
course of the arguments, Sri Kuldeep
Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite
party has been asked to demonstrate the
Court that the E.D. is having any
corroborative material or any piece of
material suggesting the involvement of the
present applicant in accepting a sum of
Rs.15 lakh, except the bald allegation of Sri
Amit Yadav through his statement, Sri
Kuldeep Srivastava could not demonstrate
anything
suggesting,
prima
facie,
involvement of the present applicant.
However, trial proceedings are going on
and the allegations may be proved or
disproved before the learned trial court by
adducing the evidences from both the sides,
therefore, I am not giving any finding on
this point inasmuch as this is the domain of
the learned trial court to conduct and
conclude the trial independently strictly in
accordance with law and without being
influenced from any observation of this
order. So far as argument of Sri Srivastava
that regular bail of one co-accused Roop
Singh Yadav has been rejected by this
Court vide order dated 29.04.2022 (supra)
is concerned, notably, the CBI had filed
charge sheet against Roop Singh Yadav
whereas no charge sheet was filed against
the present applicant by the CBI. Further,
Roop Singh Yadav had not filed any
anticipatory bail application whereas the
present applicant has filed the present
anticipatory bail application. Law is trite
that there may not be parity in rejection of
bail.

17. Therefore, on the basis of
aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am
convinced that the twin requirements of
Section 45 of PMLA, 2002 are satisfied
inasmuch as the Public Prosecutor has been
given ample opportunity to establish his
case as the counter affidavit so filed and his
arguments
so
advanced
have
been
considered.
Further,
since
thorough
investigation has been conducted by the
CBI pursuant to one FIR wherein the
present applicant was accused and when
nothing incriminating has been found
against the present applicant, he has not
been charge sheeted. The E.D. has not
conducted its independent investigation and
has reiterated the investigation of the CBI,
therefore, prima facie, it appears that the
present applicant is not guilty of such
offence and being an old aged retired
employee, his liberty may be protected. It
further appears that he may not likely to
commit such offence while on anticipatory
bail.

18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in re;
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. vs
Union of India & Ors. [Special Leave
Petition (Criminal) No.4634 of 2014], has
observed as under:-

"187....... (d) The offence under
Section 3 of the 2002 Act is dependent on
10 All. Siddh Narain Sharma Vs. Asst. Director, Directorate of Enforcement Lko & Ors.
327
illegal gain of property as a result of
criminal activity relating to a scheduled
offence. It is concerning the process or
activity connected with such property,
which constitutes the offence of moneylaundering. The Authorities under the 2002
Act cannot prosecute any person on
notional basis or on the assumption that a
scheduled offence has been committed,
unless it is so registered with the
jurisdictional
police
and/or
pending
enquiry/trial including by way of criminal
complaint before the competent forum. If
the person is finally discharged/acquitted of
the scheduled offence or the criminal case
against him is quashed by the Court of
competent jurisdiction, there can be no
offence of money laundering against him or
any one claiming such property being the
property linked to stated scheduled offence
through him."

 (emphasis supplied)

19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in re;
Parvathi Kollur & Anr. vs. State by
Directorate of Enforcement [Criminal
Appeal No.1254 of 2022], observed as
under:-

"Thereafter, the Trial Court, by its
judgment and order dated 04.01.2019,
allowed the application and discharged the
appellants from the offences pertaining to
the Act of 2002 while observing that
occurrence of a scheduled offences was the
basic condition for giving rise to "proceeds
of crime"; and commission of scheduled
offence was a precondition for proceeding
under the Act of 2002."

 (emphasis supplied)

20. As per this Judgement, the case of
the applicant is fully covered within the
ratio because pre-condition of "scheduled
offence" is not there against the applicant.

21. This Court in re; Rajeev Wadhwa
vs. Union of India Thru. Joint Dir.
Directorate
of
Enforcement
[Bail
No.5867 of 2016], has observed as under:-

"Learned counsel for the applicant has
next argued that the court below has
erroneously held that the applicant is
accused of "Schedule Offence" The F.I.R.
No.17/15, Police Station Kavi Nagar,
Ghaziabad shows that the applicant is not
an accused in the said F.I.R. He submits
that the entire matter has basically been
investigated by the Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence and the F.I.R has been lodged
against co-accused Manish Jain and
Rakesh Jain only, hence the applicant is
entitled for bail."

 (emphasis supplied)

22. Since no charge sheet was filed
against Rajeev Wadhwa, he was granted
bail. The ratio of this judgement is
applicable, as admittedly, for applicant also,
CBI has not filed charge sheet for
scheduled offence.

23. There is one more aspect in the
present case that the present applicant has
cooperated with the investigation being
conducted by the CBI and after completion
of the investigation, no charge sheet has
been filed against the present applicant. He
has
further
cooperated
with
the
Enforcement Directorate as he always
appeared before the E.D. to record his
statement under Section 50 of the PMLA,
2002, therefore, there is no need to take
him into judicial custody inasmuch as
liberty of a person may not be infringed
mechanically.

24. In the judgment of Apex Court
rendered in re: Joginder Kumar vs. State
of Utter Pradesh, (1994) 4 SCC 260,
328 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
wherein it has been observed that arrest is
not mandatory if an accused person cooperates 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

25. The Apex Court in re: Siddharth
vs. State of U.P. and another, (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 accused has cooperated with the investigation throughout
and yet on the charge-sheet being filed nonbailable 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)

26. The Apex Court in re: Aman Preet
Singh
vs.
C.B.I.
through
Director,
Criminal Appeal No.929 of 2021, has
observed as under:

"Insofar as the present case is
concerned and the general principles 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)

27. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances as well as the settled legal
proposition, I find it appropriate that liberty
of the present applicant may be protected
till conclusion of the trial proceedings in
view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in re; Sushila Aggarwal vs. State
(NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC online SC 98.

28. Therefore, it is directed that in the
event of arrest, applicant- Siddh Narain
Sharma shall be released on anticipatory
bail in the aforesaid complaint case number
till conclusion of trial on his furnishing a
personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two
sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each before the
10 All. Ratan Singh Vs. C.B.I. Anti Corruption Branch Lko.
329
court
concerned
with
the
following
conditions:-

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

II. that the applicant shall not leave
India during pendency of the trial without
prior permission from the concerned court
and shall also surrender his passport, if any,
before the concerned court forthwith;

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

IV. that the applicant shall appear
before the trial court on each date fixed
unless personal presence is exempted;
V. that in case of breach of any of the above
conditions, the court below shall have the
liberty to cancel the bail.

29.

Accordingly,
the
instant
anticipatory bail application is allowed.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 329
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.
9962 of 2021

Ratan Singh ...Applicant
Versus
C.B.I. Anti Corruption Branch Lko.
 ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Himanshu Hemant Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anurag Kumar Singh

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 - Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d)-
Applicant-Director of M/s. Drolia Coke Industries
Pvt
Ltd,
Chandauli-manufactures
special
smokeless fuels-receiving raw materials from
coal mines projects of NCl on subsidized ratesdoes not possess any coal-sell it in black
market-surprise check-factory running below
par-half of its capacity-out of four only one
furnance working-only four labourers workingno electricity connection-chargesheet filed on
31.05.2012-Applicant not misused the libertyentitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs St. of Guj.,
(2016) 1 SCC 152

2. Siddharth Vs St. of U. P. & anr., (2021) SCC
Online SC 615

3. Sushila Aggarwal Vs St. (NCT of Delhi), 2020
SCC online SC 98

4. Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation & anr., (2021) SCC Online SC 922

5. Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs St. of Guj.,
(2016) 1 SCC 152

6. Gudikanti Narasimhulu & ors. Vs Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
(1978) 1 SCC 240
(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ajit Kumar Sinha,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Himanshu Hemant Gupta, Sri Ashwarya
Sinha and Sri Alok Kumar Singh, learned
counsels appearing on behalf of the
applicant as well as Sri Anurag Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for the Central
Bureau of Investigation assisted by Sri