Rachin Gupta vs Cbi / Scb Lko.

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2021 of 2024

Applicant :- Rachin Gupta

Opposite Party :- Cbi / Scb Lko.

Counsel for Applicant :- Pranjal Krishna,Shahla Zubair,Suhaib Ashraf

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in F.I.R./Crime No. RC 03(A)/2022, Police Station CBI/SCB, Lucknow under Section 120B r/w 406 and 420 IPC & Section 7 of PC Act, 1988 & Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988.

Heard Shri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for CBI.

This Court while granting interim protection to the applicant vide order dated 02.09.2024 has passed the following order:-

"1. The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 of The Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. RC 03(A)/2022, Police Station CBI/SCB, Lucknow under Section 120B r/w 406 and 420 IPC & Section 7 of PC Act, 1988 & Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988.

2. Heard Mr. Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the C.B.I.

3. Prosecution case is that the case was registered on 2.8.2022 against the named accused persons in the F.I.R. It is alleged that M/s Atarson Overseas Private Ltd. Bareilly during the period 1.4.2015 to 31.3.2019 through its Directors in criminal conspiracy with each other defrauded the Punjab National Bank, Izzat Nagar Branch, Bareilly to the tune of Rs.43.98 crores by way of diverting/siphoning of the loan proceeds. It is further alleged that instead of using that money in running the Rice Mill the borrowers actually purchased the gold from the borrowed loan money.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in para 16.32, the allegation against the applicant is that he was the authosied signatory for operation of bank account.

It is submitted that the co-accused Seema Gupta and Sunil Gupta both were Directors and both of them have been granted interim protection by this Court in this case. It is submitted that despite the allegation, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as charge sheet has been filed.

It is not disputed that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation. This case is squarely covered by judgement dated 20.3.2023 of Mahdoom Bava vs. CBI passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 376/2023 where it has been held that if a person has cooperated with the investigation but has never been arrested and charge sheet has been filed, he can be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has relied upon the judgement dated 11.7.2022 passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and others (SLP (Crl) No.5191/2021) (emphasized on paragraph 90) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is not advisable on the part of the court to categories all the offences into one group and deny bail on that basis.

He has further relied on judgment dated 21.3.2023 passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and others (SLP (Crl) No.5191/2021) which deals with the cases of anticipatory bail and while emphasizing paragraph (v) of the judgement submitted that the principles laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil for regular bail would equally apply to anticipatory bail cases as anticipatory bail after all is one of the species of a bail.

5. Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the contention of learned counsel for the applicant, however he could not deny the fact that four jewellers/firms, who have participated in the transaction, as stated in paragraph 16.10 of the charge-sheet, have not been arrayed as an accused.

6. Perused the record.

7. On due consideration to the judgments dated 11.7.2022 and 21.3.2023 of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) and Mahdoom Bava (supra) and the facts that the co accused persons who were Directors in the company, as referred to above, have been granted interim protection by this court and during investigation, the applicant has cooperated in the investigation and not arrested, charge sheet has been filed and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant till the next date of listing.

8. Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant Rachin Gupta shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

(ii) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

(iii) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

(iv) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail.

Such other reasonable conditions which the learned trial court may deem fit may be imposed.

9. List on 11.9.2024 along with CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. 1862 of 2024, 1995 of 2024 and 1979 of 2024.

10. In the meantime, learned counsel for the C.B.I. shall file counter affidavit."

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that charge sheet in the matter has been filed. The applicant has cooperated in the investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

Learned counsel for CBI has vehemently opposed the bail application.

On due consideration to the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of "Mahdoom Bava v. CBI, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 299" as well as considering the fact that charge sheet has been filed in the matter; the applicant has cooperated in the investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the trial, the interim protection granted vide order dated 02.09.2024 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

In view of the above, since, charge-sheet in the matter has been filed, if the applicant is summoned to face trial for offence in question, he shall be released on bail by the trial court on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) 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 tamper with the evidence;

(ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

(iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

(iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed.

Order Date :- 11.9.2024

R.C.