JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI J.

1. Heard Sri Praveen Tripathi, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rao Narendra Singh, the learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 277 of 2016, under Sections 60 Excise Act and Sections 255, 259, 260, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 IPC, Police Station Karnailganj, District Gonda.

3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 19.07.2016 against two persons-Ramesh Verma and Dharam Pal Gautam alias Bhikhari Gautam (the applicant) by a Senior Sub Inspector of Police, alleging that on the basis of information received from a mukhbir, a police party reached the polisher (small scale rice mill) of the applicant. As per FIR case, co-accused Ramesh Verma was arrested another person escaped and the person arrested told that the person who ran away, was the applicant and he is the owner of the polisher. The F.I.R. states that about 25 litres illicit liquor kept in a jerry-can, some bottles containing illicit liquor and some injections were recovered from the premises.

4. The learned AGA has raised a preliminary objection on the ground that the allegations leveled in the FIR are of a serious nature and it is settled law that an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail should be entertained only in exceptional circumstances. In support of his submission Sri. Rao Narendra Singh, the learned AGA-I has relied upon the judgment in the case of P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24. The aforesaid judgment was passed in an appeal against an order passed by the High Court of Delhi rejecting the appellant’s plea for anticipatory bail in a case registered by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) being under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 420 IPC, Section 8 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in the case registered by the Enforcement Directorate in ECIR No. 07/HIU/2017 punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 in an offence relating to the alleged irregularities in Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to INX Media for receiving foreign investment to the tune of Rs. 305 crores against approved inflow of Rs. 4.62 crores. In this context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that:

“69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy.”

5. However, in a later judgment rendered by a Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, consisting of five Hon’ble Judges in Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after taking into consideration numerous previous judgments, including the judgment in the case of P. Chidambaram (supra), specifically held that:

“53. It is quite evident, therefore, that the predominant thinking of the larger Constitution Bench, in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465, w