Allowed

Mukesh Kumar Chaturvedi v. State of U.P. thr. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. and another

Allahabad HC11 Feb 2022ABAIL/886/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in an FIR involving property dispute allegations, emphasizing the civil nature of the underlying conflict and the potential for settlement, subject to specific conditions to be fulfilled during investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties and complying with specific conditions.

Mukesh Kumar Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P. thr. Prin… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 886 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Chaturvedi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thr. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Virendra Singh Parmar

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Virendra Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Mukesh Kumar Chaturvedi, seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Case Crime No. 161 of 2021, under Sections 457, 419, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Naraini, District Banda.

¶7

Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P. This anticipatory bail application is thus being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the first informant is the real brother of the applicant. The allegation against the applicant is that he has executed a rent deed in favour of one Mulayam Singh for the property of which he is not the owner and belongs to the first informant. It is argued that there is a dispute going on between the parties for which a civil suit has also been filed on 07.09.2021 by the applicant against the first informant. It is argued that the present dispute, if any, is a dispute of civil nature. Learned counsel has argued that there are chances of settlement between the parties. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 20 of the affidavit in support of anticipatory bail application.

¶9

Per contra, learned counsel for first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and argued that the

¶10

applicant is in the habit of doing such forgery. Even there is a dispute with regards to property between the applicant and his elder brother. It is argued that there are allegations against the applicant.

¶11

Learned counsel for the State also opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶12

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant and the first informant are the real brother. There is a dispute with regards to property between them and a civil suit prior to the First Information Report has been filed by the applicant against the first informant. The arrest of the applicant may ruin the chances of compromise between the parties at this stage.

¶13

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant Mukesh Kumar Chaturvedi, involved in Case Crime No. 161 of 2021, under Sections 457, 419, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Naraini, District Banda, he 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 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 by a police office as and when required;

¶16

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office;

¶17

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶18

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

¶19

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from

¶20

the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶21

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶22

The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

¶23

Order Date :- 11.2.2022 M. ARIF/e-court

¶24

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD ARIF Date: 2022.02.11 18:16:07 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mukesh Kumar Chaturvedi v. State of U.P. thr. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Chaturvedi v. State of U.P. thr. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aman Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Anil Vs State of U.P.

Narendra Vs State of U.P. though it Principal Secretary (Home)Lucknow

Suraaj Khan @ Suraaj Malik Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Jaswanti Vs State of U.P.

Anshul Vs State of U.P through Secretary Home and Another