Allowed

Neeraj Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2022ABAIL/10269/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the filed Criminal Miscellaneous Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for three accused persons charged with offences under IPC 323, 452, 392, 504 and 506. The court directed their release on personal bond and two sureties subject to eight conditions, relying on Sushila Aggarwal.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on anticipatory bail on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties each subject to specified conditions.

Neeraj Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10269 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Neeraj Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Awadh Bihari Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Awadh Bihari Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Viresh Kumar Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Complaint Case No.1214 of 2018 (Tillu vs. Neeraj Kumar and Others), under Sections 323, 452, 392, 504 and 506 IPC at Police Station- Atrauli, District Aligarh with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicants are stated to have barged into the house of the complainant and are stated to have taken her valuables and even are stated to have criminally intimidated her on 29.09.2018 at about 3:00 pm.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. The said complaint case is a counterblast to the FIR No.166 dated 10.04.2018 filed on behalf of informant/complainant Bhagwati Devi, who happens to be the mother of applicant no.3. Learned counsel has further stated that the said summoning order is a cryptic one passed without application of mind. There are on criminal antecedents of the applicants. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they are ready to cooperate in trial failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶10

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and

¶11

considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶12

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Neeraj Kumar, Bittu @ Vikas Vashney and Sonu @ Surendra Kumar Vashney be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

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

¶14

that the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶15

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

¶16

that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶20

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial or deciding the regular bail application.

¶21

Order Date :- 9.11.2022 Ravi Kant

¶22

Digitally signed by RAVI KANT Date: 2022.11.11 09:56:26 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Neeraj Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Kumar and 2 Others 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naresh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yashpal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Shakuntala Vs State of U.P and Another

Udhan Singh Saini and Another Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Agrawal Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar Saxena and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another