Allowed

Subhash Chandra Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Sept 2022ABAIL/13832/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Allahabad allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding charges of obstructing authority (188) and cheating (420 IPC). The court held that a case for bail was made out, requiring the applicant to furnish a bond with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed subject to a personal bond of Rs. 70,000 with two sureties and compliance with standard bail conditions.

Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13832 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Subhash Chandra Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Diwakar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 269 of 2021, under Sections 188, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Chhatari, District Bulandshahr with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. It has further been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. According to prosecution version, applicant was working as Incharge of Wheat Purchasing Center, Bulandshahr. The allegation against the applicant is that on 12.06.2021 he was found absent and during inspection, it was found that applicant was taking more quantity of wheat than shown in measurement and thereby exploiting the farmers, who came there to sell their wheat. Learned counsel submitted that only minor difference in weight has been found and the wheat was lying in open place and thus, minor difference in weight cannot be given much importance. It was submitted that on the date of alleged inspection, applicant has fallen ill and he was gone to take medicines. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he

¶8

would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

¶10

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶11

In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶12

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Subhash Chandra Sharma involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 70,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions :-

¶14

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation

¶15

by the police as and when required;

¶16

(ii) 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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶17

(iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶19

Order Date :- 1.9.2022 Anand

¶20

Digitally signed by ANAND VERMA Date: 2022.09.05 14:17:44 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Subhash Chandra Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Chandra Sharma 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

Vinay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lucky Trisholiya and 5 Others Vs State of U.P.

Nizam Alam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brajesh Kumar Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Akhilesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Anotherr

Rajesh Vs State of U.P. and Another