Allowed

Satyendra Kumar Chaudhary v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC3 Nov 2022ABAIL/8704/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC, the Court found that the case for bail was made out considering the nature of accusation and role of the applicant without expressing an opinion on merits of the underlying investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed with a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties on conditions of availability, non-interference, and cooperation.

Satyendra Kumar Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8704 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Satyendra Kumar Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Mishra,Ajai Kumar Mishra,Vinay Saran(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant 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.112 of 2021, under Sections 379, 420, 426, 467, 468 I.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, District Prayagraj 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. According to prosecution version, on 13.12.2020 in a competitive examination pertaining to Public Service Commission was conduced in Babu J.R.D. Pal Inter College Mansaita, Prayagraj, wherein, applicant is manager as well as Principal of the said college. It was alleged that after examination, two OMR sheets of one candidate were found and some other irregularities were also detected. Learned counsel submitted that said examination was conducted in supervision of Public Service Commission itself and there were also C.C.T.V. footage of the examination. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that there is no evidence that

¶9

applicant was involved in alleged irregularities in the examination. The applicant has been made accused in this case merely on the basis that he is Manager and Principal of the said College. Earlier, applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail and he has not misused the liberty of anticipatory bail. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. 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 would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer 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 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.

¶13

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Satyendra Kumar Chaudhary in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on

¶15

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 :-

¶16

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation 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 :- 3.11.2022 Neeraj

¶21

Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.11.05 14:29:07 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satyendra Kumar Chaudhary v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyendra Kumar Chaudhary 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

Ashok Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Ankit Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Seema Rani Agarwal Vs State of U.P.

Alam Vs State of U.P.

Abhilash Singh Vs State of U.P.