Allowed

Suresh Srivastav v. State of U.P. Thru. Cbi/ Acb/ Lko.

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2022/1066/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Suresh Srivastav accused under Sections 120-B IPC and Sections 7 & 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Granted on reliance of Sushila Aggarwal case.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed with conditions to appear for interrogation, not tamper with evidence or witnesses, and not leave India without permission, on bond of Rs. 20,000 and two sureties.

Suresh Srivastav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Cbi/ Acb/ Lko. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1066 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Suresh Srivastav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Cbi/ Acb/ Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Smt. Padma Verma,Sunit Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sunit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the CBI.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Criminal Case No.1668 of 2017 arising out of Crime No.RC0062017A0017, under Sections 120-B IPC read with Sections 7 & 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station CBI/ACB, Lucknow, District Lucknow, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per the prosecution story, the complainant had applied for home loan of Rs.20 lakhs from Union Bank of India, Cant. Branch, Bareilly. The said amount has been sanctioned by Branch Manager Zia-ud-din who gave him a D.D. of Rs.19 lakhs and asked Rs.30,000/-as commission for remaining one lakh. The said trap was laid and the applicant was found sitting in the cabin at the time of trap along with two other persons. He was asked to join the trap proceeding as a witness but he is stated to have refused to do so.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the aforesaid offence whatsoever. He was neither named in the pre-trap enquiry nor in the memo except the fact that he did not propose to be a witness of the said trap proceeding. Learned counsel has also informed that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation and charge-sheet has been submitted. He is ready to cooperate further in the trial also. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The main accused Zia-ud-din, who is the Branch Manager, has already been granted regular bail by the court below.

¶9

Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh,learned counsel for the CBI has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but he has not disputed the fact that the applicant has no criminal

¶10

history.

¶11

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98", the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶12

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest, let the accusedapplicant - Suresh Srivastav, be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

that the applicant shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶14

that 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;

¶15

that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶16

that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶17

that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶18

that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶20

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶21

Order Date :- 8.7.2022 Siddhant

¶22

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SAHU Date: 2022.07.08 17:05:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Suresh Srivastav v. State of U.P. Thru. Cbi/ Acb/ Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Srivastav v. State of U.P. Thru. Cbi/ Acb/ Lko.

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

Yogendra Loniya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mateen and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow

Vatika Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrt. Lucknow

Arvind Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru.Sit,Gomti Nagar Lko.

Santosh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rajit Ram and Another Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lko.and Another