Rohit vs. State Of U.P.

Facts

This application for anticipatory bail was filed by Rohit (the applicant) in connection with Case Crime No. 166 of 2021, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Pakbara, District Moradabad. The applicant had previously been granted anticipatory bail until the submission of the police report by an order dated May 7, 2022. The FIR alleged involvement in offenses including fraud, anti-national activities, criminal breach of trust, and evasion of tax/GST, causing revenue loss to the State and Central Government. The applicant contended he was innocent, falsely implicated, not named in the FIR, and had cooperated with the investigation. The charge sheet had been submitted, and no custodial interrogation was required. The State (opposite party) opposed the prayer but could not dispute the applicant's submissions.

Held

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail during the pendency of the trial. The reasoning was based on the submissions made, the nature of the accusations, the applicant's antecedents, and crucially, the fact that the applicant was not named in the First Information Report (FIR) and his name surfaced only during the course of the investigation. The Court noted that the investigation had been completed, the applicant had cooperated, and no custodial interrogation was required. Furthermore, no violation of the conditions of the earlier anticipatory bail or misuse of liberty was pointed out by the learned AGA. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court found that the applicant met the criteria for anticipatory bail. The applicant was directed to be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to specific conditions including making himself available on each date, not inducing or threatening witnesses, not leaving India without prior permission, and depositing his passport if any.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 166 of 2021, considering the allegations of fraud and tax evasion and his subsequent cooperation with the investigation, despite not being named in the FIR? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on principles of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and the court's discretion). Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He was not named in the FIR, and his name surfaced during the investigation. He has cooperated with the investigation, a charge sheet has been filed, and custodial interrogation is not required. He also stated he has no criminal antecedents and has been summoned by the court. He relied on the previous order granting anticipatory bail and the Supreme Court's judgments in *Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh*, *Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation*, and *Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)*. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the applicant's submissions from the record.