Allowed

Nagendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2022ABAIL/11930/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an application seeking anticipatory bail for the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a cheating offence case. The Court relied on Supreme Court jurisprudence, granted bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions regarding availability, evidence tampering, and witness intimidation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed subject to personal bond with two sureties and specific conditions regarding interrogation, evidence, travel, and witness conduct.

Nagendra 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. - 11930 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Nagendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 193 of 2022, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police StationShahganj, District-Agra, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the co-accused person Jainy is stated to have sold the house on 14.2.2022 to one Smt. Kanta Devi through a registered sale deed despite having entered into an agreement to sell with the first informant in connivance with the applicant.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case owing to his relationship with the main accused person Jainy, as he is the brother-in-law. Learned counsel has stated that applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. He is neither the signatory of the said sale deed executed on 14.2.2022 nor he has been assigned any overt act in it. Learned counsel has next stated that the FIR itself indicates that the applicant is said to have entered into a conspiracy with the main accused person Jainy, but there is no evidence to substantiate the said allegations. Learned counsel has next stated that the matter is of civil nature but has been converted into criminal one. There is no criminal history of the applicant. It is further stated that applicant is co-operating in the investigation and is ready to cooperate in future also. There is no likelihood of the applicant repeating the said offence, if any. 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.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory

¶10

bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that applicant has no criminal history.

¶11

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by 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) 5 SCC 1", 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 Nagendra be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned/Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

that the applicant shall make himself 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 in case charge-sheet is submitted 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.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 12.12.2022 Shalini

¶22

Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.12.14 10:29:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nagendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagendra 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

Shakeel Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

M.S. Ahluwalia Vs State of U.P. and Another

M.S. Ahluwalia Vs State of U.P. and Another

Karan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Aslam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shankar Lal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.