JUDGMENT :

Krishan Pahal, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Ms. Pratibha Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.A. Khan, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Complaint Case No.10639 of 2020 (Ram Karan Chauhan vs. Kalika Kumar), registered under Sections 323, 406, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. at Police Station Pannuganj, District Sonbhadra with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have sold his bullet motorcycle for a consideration of Rs.1.75 lakhs to the informant. The applicant is stated to have neither supplied the said motorcycle to the informant nor returned the amount of Rs.1.75 lakhs.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The applicant is an employee in railway department and has strong alibi on the date of occurrence. The said duty chart has been filed as Annexure No.9 to the affidavit filed with the bail application. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant himself had purchased the said motorcycle for a consideration of Rs.1.38 lakhs and how it is possible that the said motorcycle could be sold for a consideration of more amount than the original price of the motorcycle. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant had no knowledge of any proceedings pending against him as he is in job at Kolkata. Learned counsel has further stated that the said proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and non-bailable warrant have been issued the same day on 31.1.2023 and the proceedings under Sections 83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated on 16.3.2023.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the present complaint case is frivolous and has been instituted against the applicant with an intention to keep the said motorcycle with him as the informant is brother-in-law of the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit, except the present case. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that already proceedings under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the applicant and he has not cooperated during trial.

8. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A., taking into consideration the very fact that applicant is an employee and had no knowledge of any proceedings herein, and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Kalika Kumar be released forthwith in the aforesaid complaint case (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i). t