Dismissed

Satyapal Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2021ABAIL/303/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court found the materials collected by the Investigating Officer sufficient to make out the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust. Consequently, no grounds for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. were found. However, the applicant was allowed time to surrender to the trial court within 90 days for future bail consideration.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action taken if applicant surrenders to the court below within 90 days to apply for bail; otherwise coercive action shall be taken.

Satyapal Sharma 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. - 303 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Satyapal Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- M J Akhtar,V.M. Zaidi (Sr. Adv) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. in the Court today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri M J Akhtar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Satyapal Sharma, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 389 of 2019, under Sections- 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Badaun, during pendency of trial.

¶8

There is allegation in the F.I.R regarding the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust in the affairs of a company. Charge-sheet has already been filed by the Investigating Officer.

¶9

Applicant has approached this Court after submission of charge sheet against him relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and judgment of this Court in the case of Adil Vs. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S No.438 Cr.P.C. No. 8285 of 2020. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the material collected by the Investigating Officer, no offence is made out against the applicant, hence he is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial.

¶10

After considering the material collected by the Investigating officer in support of charge sheet, this Court finds that the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant is not correct. The material collected by the Investigating Officer makes out the offences regarding which the applicant has been charge sheeted.

¶11

No ground for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant is

¶12

made out.

¶13

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and on the request of learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 90 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as per the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).

¶14

Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶15

However, in case, the applicant does not appears before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶16

It is made clear that the applicant will not be granted any further time by this court for surrendering before the court below as directed above.

¶17

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 5.2.2021 KS

Satyapal Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyapal Sharma 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

Smt. Rita Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mehrauddin and 9 Others Vs State of U.P.

Sant Ram @ Santi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Roop Chandra Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Geeta Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mayank Tyagi Vs State of U.P.