Akshay Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 1

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2454 of 2020

Applicant :- Akshay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Madan Lal Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vishal Mohan Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

¶5

Heard Sri M.L. Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.M. Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant and Km. Meena, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there was business transaction between the parties and the dispute between them is purely civil in nature. The impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by the complainant just for harassment, hence he may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶7

Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant has a criminal history of one case to which learned counsel for the applicant states that in the said case he has been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 8.4.2019 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 14366 of 2019 copy of which is annexed at page-28 of the present bail application and except the said case, the applicant has no criminal antecedent.

¶8

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 applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶9

In the event of arrest of the applicant Akshay involved in Case Crime No. 44 of 2017 under sections 147, 420, 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., police station Surajpur, District G.B. Nagar, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- 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:-

¶10

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police office as and when required;

¶11

(ii) the applicant 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 office;

¶12

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶13

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to

¶14

file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶15

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶16

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶17

The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

¶18

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶19

Order Date :- 17.9.2020 Shiraz

Akshay v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshay v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muttalib Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Ram Gopal @ Gopali Vs State of U.P.

Mohit Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Ramgareeb Vs State of U.P.

Krishna Vs State of U.P.

Arvind and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P.