Allowed

Dilavar and Another v. State of U.P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC24 Feb 2020ABAIL/1133/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by two applicants accused of cheating and forgery under the IPC. Based on the reporting that Rs. 7,65,000 had been paid to the first informant and no criminal antecedents existing, the Bench granted bail subject to various standard conditions including appearance, non-tampering with evidence, and time limits for investigation and trial.

What did the court decide?

Release on anticipatory bail absolutely, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties and compliance with listed conditions.

Dilavar and Another Vs State of U.P and 2 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1133 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Dilavar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Singh Parihar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Jai Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants had entered into a transaction of sale of property on 6.1.2016, however, subsequently, it was found that plot sold in favour of wife of first informant was not the same property whose sale deed was executed and thus F.I.R. was lodged. Learned counsel has argued that now with the intervention of respectful persons of the society parties have entered into agreement and the applicant has paid Rs. 7,65,000/- on 27.1.2020 through R.T.G.S. in the account of first informant.

¶7

Vide order dated 12.02.2020 passed by this Court, learned AGA was directed to seek instructions as to whether parties have compromised and amount of Rs. 7,65,000/- has been transferred in the account of first informant within ten days from the concerned police station.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. states that Investigating Officer, Sanjiv Kumar of Police Station Ganganagar, District Meerut is present in the Court and has stated that amount has been paid by the applicants to first informant.

¶9

In view of aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation and the fact that he has no criminal antecedents, the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶10

In the event of arrest of the applicants, Dilavar and Amarjit involved in Case Crime no. 267 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, P.S. Ganganagar, District Meerut, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50 ,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶11

that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶12

that the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or

¶13

tamper with the evidence;

¶14

that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶15

that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants;

¶16

that the investigating officer is directed to conclude the investigation in the present case in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this court while considering or deciding the present bail application of the applicants;

¶17

that the applicants are directed to produce certified copy of this order before the SSP/SP concerned within 10 days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of the present order;

¶18

that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶19

that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶20

that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶21

that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶22

It is made clear that if the charge-sheet is submitted and cognizance is taken and matter is committed to the court of session, as the case may be, the trial court shall decide the trial preferably within a period of one year from the date of cognizance/ committal of the case to the Court of Sessions.

¶23

In view of aforesaid, the application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, allowed.

¶24

Order Date :- 24.2.2020

¶25

MN/-

Dilavar and Another v. State of U.P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilavar and Another v. State of U.P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radha Krishna Bharti Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahesh Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pyaare Lal Vs State of U.P.

Kiran Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Netrapal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another