The High Court granted anticipatory bail to Rajeev Jawla in a cheating case. The court held a case is made out and imposed conditions of cooperation and non-interference.
Anticipatory bail granted with personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions of interrogation, non-inducement, and cooperation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7540 of 2022
Applicant :- Rajeev Jawla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0065/2020, under Section 420/467/468/471/504/506 I.P.C., Police Station Adarsh Nagar, District Shamli with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
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 allegation against applicant is that he along with co-accused person was running a firm in the name of Jwala Insurance Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and applicant has taken Rs.3500/- from complainant on pretext of providing insurance for his car from IFFCO TOKIO Insurance Company but later on it was revealed that insurance certificate given by the applicant was a forged document. Learned counsel submitted that the first information report has been lodged making false and baseless allegations. In fact during investigation, the first informant himself has submitted an affidavit to the Investigating Officer, which is part of the case diary, wherein, he has inter-alia stated that he has not given the said amount for insurance and in fact he has returned the due amount of applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents
and that 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.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.
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.
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.
The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
In the event of arrest of applicant Rajeev Jawla involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on 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:-
(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(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;
(iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.
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.
Order Date :- 7.9.2022 Neeraj
Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.09.09 11:28:11 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant in the pending criminal case.
What conditions should be imposed on the applicant if anticipatory bail is allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶10
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajeev Jawla
Raj Beer Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
