Allowed

Chandra Shekhar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2022ABAIL/5905/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a cheating and forgery case. The application was allowed subject to the applicant cooperating in the investigation and trial while furnishing a personal bond with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing personal bond and sureties.

Chandra Shekhar 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. - 5905 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Chandra Shekhar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Tripathi, 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. 539 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 120B and 34 IPC, P.S. Sigra, District Varanasi, 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, applicant and co-accused persons have obtained loan of about Rs. 10,0000/- each on the basis of forged documents and thereafter the said amount was transferred into account of co-accused Pankaj Shukla and Rishabh Mishra and the bank amount was misappropriated. Learned counsel submitted that applicant has not opened any bank account nor he has applied for loan and that someone else has opened account in his name and the said loan amount of Rs. 10,07,800 was transferred into account of applicant and thereafter the said amount was transferred into account of co-

¶8

accused Rishabh Mishra and the applicant has no knowledge about the said transaction. Further, similarly placed co-accused Rajitram Yadav, Sanjeet Tiwari, Ramesh Chandra Shukla, Ajay Kumar Singh, Arvind Kumar Pandey, Ravi Kumar, Rajat Kumar Maurya have already been granted anticipatory bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court till submission of report, copy of bail orders are available on record. 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 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 applicants 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

In the event of arrest of the applicant Chandra Shekhar involved in the aforesaid case, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2)

¶13

Cr.P.C. before the competent Court 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

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

¶19

The anticipatory bail application is disposed of.

¶20

Order Date :- 4.8.2022 A. Tripathi

¶21

Digitally signed by AKHILESH TRIPATHI Date: 2022.08.06 10:16:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandra Shekhar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Shekhar 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

Shaktiman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mehul Kumari Vs State of U.P.

Kajim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj Harijan and Another Vs State of U.P. .and Another

Om Prakash @ Lallan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amir and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another