Allowed

Santosh Kumar Kushwaha and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2021ABAIL/180/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to Santosh Kumar Kushwaha and another, who feared arrest in a cheating case involving fraudulent sale deed execution. Bail conditions included surrendering passports, not leaving India without permission, and maintaining presence for trial dates.

What did the court decide?

Released on anticipatory bail on personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions including passport surrender and attendance at trial.

Santosh Kumar Kushwaha and Another Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 180 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Kushwaha And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA.

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Santosh Kumar Kushwaha and Ashok Kumar, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 84 of 2020, under Sections 420,467,468,471 I.P.C., Police Station- Panki, District- Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of trial.

¶7

Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

¶8

There is allegation of fraudulent execution of sale deed in the First Information Report. against the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicants are not named in the First Information Report.Applicants were marginal witnesses.They were neither vendor nor vendee.They have not beneficiary of the transaction. Applicants have definite apprehension of their arrest by the police.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The

¶10

apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶11

After considering the rival submissions this court finds that there is a case registered against the applicant. It cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend him. After the lodging of FIR the arrest can be made by the police at will. There is no definite period fixed for the police to arrest an accused against whom an FIR has been lodged. The courts have repeatedly held that arrest should be the last option for the police and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative or his custodial interrogation is required. Irrational and indiscriminate arrests are gross violation of human rights. In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 1349 the Apex Court has referred to the third report of National Police Commission wherein it is mentioned that arrests by the police in India is one of the chief source of corruption in the police. The report suggested that, by and large, nearly 60 percent of the arrests were either unnecessary or unjustified and that such unjustified police action accounted for 43.2 percent of expenditure of the jails. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental rights and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative. According to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the peculiar case the arrest of an accused should be made.

¶12

Hence in case of his arrest the applicant is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and his antecedents as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and order dated 22.05.2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.2609 of 2020. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶13

Let the applicants involved in the aforesaid crime be be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a

¶14

personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

The applicants shall not leave India during the pendency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶16

The applicants shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.

¶17

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;

¶18

The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶19

In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail, the trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶20

The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶22

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 1.2.2021

¶25

Atul kr. sri.

Santosh Kumar Kushwaha and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Kushwaha and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Afsar Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Randheer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Richa Singh Vs State of U.P.

Udaypratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dilshad Vs State of U.P.

Nadeem @ Bahra Vs State of U.P.