The Allahabad High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail to a Supervisor in the company in a financial fraud case.
A Single Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc anticipatory bail Application filed by Banti Sharma Alias Brahm Prakash Sharma.
The application for anticipatory bail has been filed for anticipatory bail in Case under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C, Police Station Harduaganj, District Aligarh, during the pendency of trial.
As per prosecution story, the applicant, who happens to be the Supervisor in the company, alongwith other co-accused persons is stated to have usurped the money of several persons who had deposited their money in the company as policy bond.
Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. The applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has come up later on during investigation, although it is mentioned in the FIR that an unknown Supervisor was also involved in the said crime.
Counsel has stated that the applicant is a bona fide person and has cooperated during investigation and complied with the provisions of Section 41-A CrPC.
Counsel has further stated that subsequently the final report (charge-sheet) was submitted against the applicant and he had challenged the same before the Court by filing an Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C, which was disposed of vide order dated 31.8.2022 and the applicant was directed to file discharge application before the court concerned under Section 239 CrPC.
Counsel for the applicant has further stated that the said discharge application was rejected vide order dated 13.9.2022 by the trial court, as such, the applicant had challenged the said order before the Court by filing Criminal Revision, which was dismissed vide order dated 6.4.2023 by the Court.
Subsequent to it, the applicant had filed another petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the entire proceedings and the orders dated 1.5.2023 and 12.4.2023, which was also disposed of vide order dated 11.7.2023.
Counsel for the applicant has further stated that subsequent to it in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 11.7.2023 of the Court, the applicant had filed regular bail application on 28.7.2023 but the same has not been decided by the court concerned.
In the meantime, the said regular bail application being pending the applicant had filed anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Judge, Aligarh on 1.8.2023 which has been rejected by the Special Judge (EC Act)/Additional Session Judge, Aligarh vide order dated 28.8.2023, as such, the applicant has applied for anticipatory bail before the Court.
Counsel has further stated that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit and is entitled for anticipatory bail.
Per contra, A.G.A has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the applicant had twice agitated the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C and once the provisions of Section 397 Cr.P.C before the Court by filing criminal revision and failed in it, and subsequently, filed anticipatory bail application pending regular bail application filed in the court concerned on 28.7.2023, as such, the matter tantamounts to forum shopping.
Filing an anticipatory bail application, while there being a regular bail application pending, is a misuse of process of Court. The applicant is used to filing multiple applications and petitions at various forums including the High Court. These acts are a classic example of forum shopping and it cannot be permitted to keep on going so eternally.
“After taking into consideration the rival contentions, the fact that applicant had filed several petitions before the Court thrice and failed and there is pending regular bail application of the applicant before the court concerned and coupled with the said arguments tendered at Bar in the light of the judgment in Shivam (supra), I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant”, the Court observed while rejecting the anticipatory bail.