Allowed

Sandeep Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2022ABAIL/5711/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC for the applicant accused of offences under Sections 332, 353, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC. The court held that a case for bail is made out, subject to conditions of personal bond and cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of availability for interrogation, non-inducement, and cooperation.

Sandeep Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5711 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sandeep Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed in Court today, is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 0108 of 2021, under Sections 332, 353, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C., Police Station Jamunapar, District Mathura with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶8

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, the brother of applicant was found committing theft of electricity and that applicant has pressurized the complainant, who is Junior Engineer in Electricity Department, for not lodging any case. It is submitted that in the alleged incident the complainant has not sustained any injury and that the allegations made by the complainant are thoroughly false. Learned counsel submitted that in fact the complainant has made demand of illegal gratification and when refused, he has lodged the FIR of this case. It is a no injury case and that applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation

¶9

and trial and he 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.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Sandeep Sharma 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 :-

¶15

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation

¶16

by the police as and when required;

¶17

(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;

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 1.8.2022 Anand

¶21

Digitally signed by ANAND VERMA Date: 2022.08.02 11:38:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sandeep Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Sharma 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

Sangeeta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Ji Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Chandra Shekhar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Bhagwan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Meenu Gautam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Bahadur and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.