Allowed

Vinay v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2022ABAIL/11347/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This anticipatory bail application was filed by Vinay regarding allegations of cheating and forgery involving electronic devices. The applicant claimed false implication due to ulterior motives. Relying on appellate jurisprudence, the court allowed the application with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on a personal bond with two sureties on the condition of availability for interrogation and non-interference.

Vinay Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11347 of 2022 Applicant :- Vinay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shri Prakash Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶4

Heard Shri Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶5

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0018 of 2022, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 66C, 66D of Information Technology Act, Police Station Pidhaura, District Agra, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶6

As per prosecution story, the co-accused Udayveer in collusion with his relatives Bhupendra Singh and his sister Smt. Aruna Devi are stated to have taken Rs.7 lakhs from the informant on the pretext of getting a job in the Army to his son.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He is not named in the FIR. The applicant himself and his brother have been duped to the tune of Rs.4.5 lakhs by the main accused Udayveer of which Rs.1 lakh each has been returned to the applicant and his brother. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. The Investigating Officer has falsely implicated the applicant and coercive measures have been initiated against him. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that the case of the applicant is at a different footing to the case of main accused Udayveer. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that NBW has been issued against the applicant although he could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶9

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 granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶10

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶11

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Vinay involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶12

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

¶13

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;

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 29.11.2022 Siddhant

¶21

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SAHU Date: 2022.11.29 19:10:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinay v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay 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

Anil Vs State of U.P.

Sajan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Umesh Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipinpal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shailendra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others