Allowed

Anjani Verma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2022ABAIL/11954/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Anjani Verma under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant claimed false implication. The court, relying on Sushila Aggarwal, granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding appearance, non-interference with witnesses/evidence, and not leaving India.

What did the court decide?

Allowed anticipatory bail; upon arrest, to be released forthwith on executing personal bond with two sureties, subject to specified conditions.

Anjani Verma 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. - 11954 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Anjani Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prabha Shanker Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, 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. 251 of 2020, under Sections 406, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Nagar, District- Basti, with the prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the husband of the applicant namely, Jagdish Prasad Verma, is stated to have duped the first informant to the tune of Rs. 11 lakhs for providing her a job of Village Development Officer.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize her. Learned counsel has stated that she is not named in the FIR. Her name has come up during investigation as she is the person, who is stated to have received Rs. 6 lakhs in her account during the said deal that transpired between the first informant and the husband of the applicant. Learned counsel has next stated that applicant is the housewife and has nothing to do with the said offence. Her account, if any, has been used by her husband only. It is further stated that coaccused person has already been granted regular bail. 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 her. 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 bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that applicant has no

¶10

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 Anjani Verma 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 herself 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 :- 8.12.2022 Shalini

¶22

Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.12.09 11:12:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anjani Verma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjani Verma 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

Saurabh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramanand Vs State of U.P.

Sarvesh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ameer Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Karandeep Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others