Allowed

Ankush Mangal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2020ABAIL/824/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to an applicant apprehending arrest in a gambling and cheating case. The order imposed conditions requiring availability for interrogation, non-interference with witnesses, and restrictions on leaving India without permission.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail till submission of police report on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties subject to specific conditions.

Ankush Mangal Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 824 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ankush Mangal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghubir Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in light of the apprehension of the arrest of the applicant in Case Crime No.679 of 2019, under Sections 3/4 Public Gambling Act & 120B IPC, Police Station Hari Parwat, District Agra.

¶7

Allegation against the applicant is that informant alleged that gambling is being carried out at the behest of the applicant. It is urged by learned counsel for the applicant that he has been falsely implicated and apprehends his arrest; there is no other evidence.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

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.

¶10

In the event of arrest of the applicant-Ankush Mangal, involved in the aforesaid case, 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:-

¶11

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

¶12

(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;

¶13

(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.

¶14

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

¶16

period of three months from the date of production of a certified 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.

¶17

The applicant is directed to produce a certified 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.

¶18

Order Date :- 28.1.2020 Mukesh Kr.

Ankush Mangal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankush Mangal v. State of U.P.

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

Pappu @ Ram Saran Vs State of U.P.

Kalpana Devi Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Hirdesh Vs State of U.P.

Malha @ Sudarshan Vs State of U.P.

Yogesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.