Allowed

Ramanand v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2022ABAIL/12075/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding charges of cheating and criminal breach of trust. Relying on Sushila Aggarwal, the Court released the applicant on a personal bond with two sureties upon furnishing compliance with four specific conditions, including not leaving India without permission.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions of availability for interrogation, non-tampering with evidence, non-intimidation of witnesses, and no leave of India

Ramanand 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. - 12075 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ramanand Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pradeep Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri P.K. Srivastava, 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.0165 of 2022, under Sections-406, 420, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Nizamabad, District-Azamgarh, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the co-accused persons, Vindhyachal and Virendra @ Bablu are said to have executed a sale deed in favour of the applicant despite having sold it to other person and having taken Rs.6,00,000/- from the informant for the same land between 2006-2022.

¶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 him. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. He is a bonafide purchaser of the land and he himself has been due of his hard earned money. 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 bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that applicant has no criminal history.

¶10

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.

¶11

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed . In the event of arrest, let the accused-applicant Ramanand 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:-

¶12

that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a

¶13

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 :- 7.12.2022

¶22

S.Chaurasia

¶23

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM CHAURASIA Date: 2022.12.09 10:36:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramanand v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramanand 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

Salman and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aamir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Narayan Das Prajapati Vs State of U.P.and Another

Saurabh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Sabir and Another Vs State of U.P.