Allowed

Anoop Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home and Anr.

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2022/14540/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the applicant's anticipatory bail application. The judgment considered the allegation of false implication and the applicant's clean record, relying on Supreme Court precedents to grant bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed till the conclusion of trial on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties each of like amount.

Anoop Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home and Anr. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 14540 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Anoop Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home And Anr.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Amit Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Vyas, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Anoop Kumar in Case Crime No. 416 of 2020, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, Police StationTadiyawan, District- Hardoi after rejecting anticipatory bail application of the applicant by In-Charge Sessions Judge, Hardoi, vide order dated 11.11.2021.

¶8

As per allegation of the first information report dated 05.10.2020 which has been lodged against 2 named persons excluding the present applicant stating that an agreement was executed for supply of certain material to the first informant after deposit of certain amount. Later on, the mobile number provided to the first informant was switched off and was not attended. Thereafter, the first informant approached to owner of the registered firm, who also did not respond to call of the first informant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case during the investigation. It is further submitted that applicant was not named in the first information report. The applicant is a Director of Farmer Culture Agro Fertilizer Company, which is a registered firm and has not committed any offence. The first informant showed his willingness to the employees of the applicant to became distributor of the company in which he was provided the various products of company as shown in Annexure No. 3 but he was not success in his business and want to usurp the money of the company and lodged the present F.I.R.

¶10

It is further submitted that named co-accused Ashish Kumar

¶11

Mishra having similar role has granted interim anticipatory bail by Co-ordiante Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.02.2022 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 274 of 2022.

¶12

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedent to his credit and he has granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2021.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but he has not refuted the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedent to his credit.

¶14

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 Vs. 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.

¶15

It is settled position of law that the anticipatory bail being an extraordinary privilege should be granted only in exceptional cases. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied, where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely roped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC Online SC 98, ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

¶17

In case of arrest, the applicant, Anoop Kumar is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in above case crime number till the conclusion of trial, on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties each of like amount before the Station House Officer of Police Station/Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required, if investigation is in progress;

¶19

(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 such person from disclosing

¶20

such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned/Court concerned;

¶22

(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked ;

¶23

(v) 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.

¶24

The Investigating Officer will continue with the investigation, if it is in progress and will not be affected by this order.

¶25

A copy of this order shall also be produced before the S.P/S.S.P concerned by the applicants, within a week, if the investigation is still in progress, who shall ensure compliance of this order.

¶26

With the aforesaid directions, the present Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.

¶27

Order Date :- 2.9.2022 Ishan

¶28

Digitally signed by ISHAN JAISWAL Date: 2022.09.08 09:50:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anoop Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home and Anr.

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

Shyam Kishore Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ajay Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Ram Adhar @ Anurag Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko.

Modh. Ajju Vs State of U.P.Thru.Secy.Deptt.of Home Lko.and Another

Nisabu @ Nisabuddin Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sayyed @ Shahjad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.