ANOOP KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) The present application has been filed with the prayer for correcting the order dated 16.11.2019 passed by this Court. The bail application is allowed and the complete modified order is as under:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant contended that initially an FIR was lodged on 10.01.2019 against the complainant and other co-accused persons, FIR is on record as Annexure 2 which was registered as FIR No.0036 of 2019 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Barabanki. It is also contended that complainant has been running the Company and playing fraud with the people at large and was in effort to grab the money of his customers, and in this connection, number of FIR's have been lodged against the complainant in different districts/States. The applicant was assisting the investigation as Sub Inspector of Cyber Cell Crime Branch, the statement of applicant in FIR No.0036 of 2019 is at page 39 of bail application which depicts the offence committed by the informant and other co-accused persons. The accused persons were arrested on 11/01/2019 thereafter, they moved bail application before this Court and this Court was pleased to release the accused persons vide order dated 22.2.2019 passed in Bail Application No.2068 of 2019 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the bail order was passed on 22.2.2019. The informant as well as other co-accused persons in FIR No.0036 of 2019 had more than one months' ample time however, the FIR was lodged on on 30.03.2019 against the accused applicant under Sections 384, 342, 386 IPC read with Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act. It is next contended that there is no explanation of the delay while lodging the FIR against the applicant. It is also contended that while moving the bail application No.2068 of 2019, the informant as well as co-accused had not made any whisper regarding the offence alleged against the applicant on 10.01.2019. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that informant/accused persons of FIR No.0036 of 2019 had not disclosed their criminal history and FIR's in several States while availing the bail order from this Court. The criminal history of the informant/accused persons in FIR No.0036 of 2019 has been categorically pleaded in bail application as well as in various paragraphs of rejoinder affidavit which are unrebutted. Next contention is that while conducting investigation in FIR No.0036 of 2019, the applicant along with Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector Anita Tiwari arrested various accused persons including Prasenjit Sardar,Shankar Gayan, Dheeraj Srivastava. However, during investigation, unfortunate incident happened when the Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector Anita Tiwari died in a road accident in mysterious circumstances. The death of Investigating Officer, Anita Tiwari was not even investigated. It is also contended that only to dilute the FIR No.0036 of 2019, the applicant has been framed in this case. Had any incident taken place as alleged in the present FIR, the accused persons while filing bail applications and availing he bail order in Bail Application No.2068 of 2019 must have pleaded and referred the entire incident which is being sought to be presented in the present bail application. This falsifies the entire prosecution story. It is further contended that the main reason for confining the applicant is that allegedly applicant had talked to one Raju Mazumdar 118 times which has been found incorrect and contrary to the record of Vodaphone Mobile No.7071348568 and as per the Subscriber detail report, this number is in the name of Arun Kumar and does not belong to Raju Mazumdar. Further contention is that this averment has been unrebutted and also the averment that informant and other co-accused of FIR No.36 of 2019 while filing the bail application have not made a whisper regarding this incident is also not disputed by learned counsel for complainant as rejoinder affidavit was filed in July, 2019. Learned counsel for complainant has also not been able to dispute the fact that complainant of the present FIR as well as co accused persons while concealing the criminal history have obtained bail order from this Court. The rejoinder affidavit filed by the applicant in this regard have remained unrebutted. It is lastly contended that the alleged recovery of memory card and two receipts have not been linked with the applicant. The FSL report dated 19.09.2019 has been produced by learned AGA which is taken on record which depicts no connection of the applicant with the memory card allegedly recovered from him.