Allowed

Ankit Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2022ABAIL/3924/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court considered an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant faced charges of cheating and forgery for impersonating in an examination. The Court found that a case for anticipatory bail was made out and granted it subject to a personal bond and standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed. Applicant to be released on personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties.

Ankit Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3924 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ankit Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Upadhyay,Vikram Yadav 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. 0104 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC & Section 7/8 of U.P. Public Examination Act, police station Saiyadraja, district Chandauli 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. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The allegation against the applicant is that on 12.04.2022 in high school examination, co-accused Bhola Yadav was apprehended, while he was taking examination in place of applicant. Learned counsel submitted that applicant has not committed any cheating or forgery and that no case under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC is made out. It was submitted that in fact on 12.04.2022 in the second session of examination, applicant was ill and he has not aware that any other candidate was taking examination in his place. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. 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

¶8

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- Ankit Yadav involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 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 :- 2.11.2022 Anand

¶19

Digitally signed by ANAND VERMA Date: 2022.11.03 11:41:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ankit Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Shamim Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Amit Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Kavita Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sujeet Kumar Goswami Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dilshad Vs State of U.P.