The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case involving forgery and cheating. The court noted the long pendency of the investigation but granted bail without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.
Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties under specific conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 18370 of 2021
Applicant :- Munesh Chandra Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 635 of 2010, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahr with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
The allegation in the first information report is that along with others, this applicant also got selected in B.T.C. teacher on the basis of forged documents. It is claimed that final report was filed after investigation and later on the order of further investigation has been made and the anticipatory bail application has been rejected by the lower court.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is apprehension of arrest of the applicant, hence the prayer for anticipatory bail is made here.
A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.
Final report is said to have remained pending for more than 10 years, thereafter, vide order dated 14.8.2019, further investigation has been directed to be done by the police. During this 10 years the applicant has not been arrested by the police. The applicant has no criminal history and has not been convicted by any court of law. The co-accused Subhash Chand and Km. Seema have been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate bench of this court.
Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the gravity of the accusation as well as the fact that there being no possibility of fleeing from justice, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.
The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
In the event of arrest of the applicant Munesh Chandra Sharma involved in the aforesaid case he may be released on anticipatory bail on his 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:-
(i) the applicant shall make him available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
Order Date :- 16.12.2021 Gss
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in view of long pendency of investigation and lack of threat to witnesses or flight risk?
Whether the applicant has fled from justice or has prior criminal history justifying denial of bail?
Munesh Chandra Sharma
Sadhna Rani (Thakur)
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
