Allowed

Ram Prakash v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2022ABAIL/15618/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a cheating and forgery case. The Court held that a case for anticipatory bail is made out, requiring the applicant to execute a bond and comply with specified conditions regarding police cooperation and trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties and complying with specified conditions of cooperation and non-interference.

Ram Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 15618 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Prakash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar 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. 268 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Bewar, District Mainpuri, 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 the prosecution version, the applicant was appointed as teacher in primary school in the year 1997 and it was alleged that he has obtained the said job by submitting forged documents. Learned counsel submitted that the allegations made against the applicant are thoroughly false. The applicant was terminated from the services only about 15 days prior to his retirement. No opportunity was granted to the applicant before terminating his services. The applicant has challenged the order of termination before this Court by filing writ petition, which is pending. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated

¶8

that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during 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 principles 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- Ram Prakash in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/Court below concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police as and when required;

¶15

(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;

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 14.11.2022 A. Tripathi

¶19

Digitally signed by AKHILESH TRIPATHI Date: 2022.11.15 12:30:14 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Prakash v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prakash v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Smt. Savita Devi Vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Sachin Vs State of Up Though Principal Secretary U.P.

Smt. Kusma Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Khalid Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mudit Saxena Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raman Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another