Allowed

Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2021ABAIL/5036/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge judgment allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant charged with offences under Sections 420, 406, 504, and 506 IPC. The court found the dispute to be civil in nature regarding business payments and granted bail with conditions to prevent tampering and absconding.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and other conditions, directed to produce the order before S.S.P./S.P. within ten days.

Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5036 of 2021 Applicant :- Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Thakur Prasad Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶4

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

¶5

This is an application of the anticipatory bail given by the applicant Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Kumar Sharma , in Case Crime No. 0073 of 2021, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Thakur Dwara, District - Moradabad.

¶6

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Submission is that the applicant and the informant were business party and they run together the business. Opposite party no. 2 kept an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- in January, 2020. It has been mentioned in the first information report that Rs. 4 lakhs were due on the applicant and when the opposite party no.2 demanded the money, he refused to pay the same and started abusing and threatening the informant. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the first information report version shows that the dispute is with regards to the payment of Rs. 4 lakhs which was due on the applicant. It has also been submitted that the dispute is in the nature of civil litigation and it has been given colour of criminal case. On the basis of first information report, the police is inclined to arrest the applicant and there is constant threat of arrest of the applicant. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history and applicant is prepared to furnish surety and bond, there is no possibility of their either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the evidence, therefore, applicant is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and has submitted that the applicant took the amount and refused to pay it back on demanding the same, he started abusing and threatening the informant.

¶8

Considered the submissions of both the sides and from perusal of the first information report, it appears that the dispute relates to payment of Rs. 4 lakhs which was to pay by the applicant to

¶9

the informant. The applicant and the informant were trading in scrap batteries. It appears that there was some business relationship between both the sides and, therefore, at this stage, considering the continuous threat of arrest, there is prima-facie case been made out for anticipatory bail.

¶10

In view of the allegations made and the kind of averments in the F.I.R. and the threat perception which is apparent in the F.I.R. as alleged in the bail application, I find it to be a fit case in which anticipatory bail may be granted to the applicant. Hence the anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶11

In the event of arrest, the applicant Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Kumar Sharma be released on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0073 of 2021, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Thakur Dwara, District - Moradabad, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer /C.J.M./ Court of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

1)The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶13

2)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 officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶14

3)The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶15

4)In default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officers shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶16

In case of filing of charge-sheet they shall appear before the court concerned for suitable orders according to section 438(3) Cr.P.C. and other condition which may be imposed by the Magistrate or the court concerned.

¶17

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad and the concerned Court/Authority/Official shall 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.

¶18

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today.

¶19

Order Date :- 19.7.2021 sailesh

Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Smt. Manju Devi Vs State of U.P.

Monu @ Mohan Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Surmati Devi @ Sursatti Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyamu Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Shadab Ansari and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another