Lawyer Not Authorised To Make A Statement Of Fact Not Specifically Pleaded In Anticipatory Bail Plea: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that a counsel can only argue a fact pleaded specifically in the anticipatory bail application and is not authorized to make a statement of fact that has not been specifically pleaded. A bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed this while dealing with an anticipatory bail petition filed by Manish Kumar, booked under Sections 408 and...
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that a counsel can only argue a fact pleaded specifically in the anticipatory bail application and is not authorized to make a statement of fact that has not been specifically pleaded.
A bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed this while dealing with an anticipatory bail petition filed by Manish Kumar, booked under Sections 408 and 409 IPC.
According to the FIR, applicant Manish Kumar, who was working as a Chief Cashier at a bank, in collision with one Yogendra Singh (who worked as a Security Guard in the bank), committed the offence of criminal breach of trust.
Essentially, the bank's Assistant Treasurer (Sunil Kumar Tiwari) deposited around Rs. 39 Lakhs in cash with the bank. While depositing the said amount, he was accompanied by Security Guard Yogendra Singh (co-accused).
After that, though Tiwari returned to his office, Yogendra Singh remained present there, and after some time, he also returned without receiving a receipt for the cash deposit.
After that, the other day, a person was sent to the bank to collect the receipt of the cash deposit; however, regarding the receipt of Rs. 39 lakhs, a receipt of Rs. 11,34,489/—was only given.
In respect of this, an FIR was lodged against the applicant (Chief Cashier), and the said Security Guard, alleging that though the applicant had received Rs. 39 Lakhs, Singh took away from him Rs. 28 Lakhs and after that, a new receipt of Rs. 11,34,489/—was submitted, and the previous receipt was cancelled and given back.
Seeking anticipatory bail in the case, the applicant moved the HC, wherein his counsel argued that the applicant was innocent and that, based on the instructions given by Yogendra Singh, the aforesaid transaction had taken place.
It was also submitted that the aforesaid incident had been recorded in the bank's C.C.T.V. footage.
However, when a pointed query was made to the counsel for the applicant about which paragraph pleadings were made about the fact that the transaction, as has been claimed by the applicant, was recorded in the bank's CCTV footage and whether police have recovered the same or not, the counsel for the applicant was unable to show from the averments made in paragraphs of the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application.
Given this, the Court observed that it was not permissible for the counsel to plead a fact not explicitly stated in the anticipatory bail petition.
Further, while passing the order, the Court also emphasised that the power of anticipatory bail is somewhat extraordinary and should be exercised only in exceptional cases where the person is falsely implicated.
The Court also underscored that a person who has committed an offence is not entitled to a grant of discretionary jurisdiction of anticipatory bail unless it is shown that he is falsely implicated or is entitled to the protection of liberty.
“A person who has violated the law and has not shown exceptional circumstances is not entitled to the benefit of extraordinary jurisdiction,” the Court remarked.
Further, noting that the FIR and the material available during the investigation showed that the offence was made out against the applicant, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition.
Appearances
Counsel for Applicant: Hanuman Prasad Kushwaha
Counsel for Opposite Party: GA
Case title – Manish Kumar vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 530
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 530