Allowed

Anirudh Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2022BAIL/33617/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a bail application filed by the applicant, a bank manager, in a cheating and forgery case. Finding no evidence against him, the Court granted bail subject to personal bond, sureties, and conditions to not tamper with evidence.

What did the court decide?

The applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence and to cooperate in trial.

Anirudh Sharma Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33617 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Anirudh Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Gupta,Harsh Vardhan Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dipendra Kumar,Pradeep Kumar Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted Sri Harsh Vadhan Gupta, on behalf of the applicant, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0596 of 2021 registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC , Police Station - Khatauli, District - Muzaffarnagar during pendency of the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The allegation in the FIR is that the applicant who was Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, GT Road Khatauli, Muzaffarenagar from where Rs.39,20,000/- had been withdrawn from the account of informant's father by co-accused Shah Alam by placing forged nd fabricated cheque. Informant's father had account in Bhur Khatauli Branch. Transfer of said amount has been made in the account of co-accused Shah Alam. The Investigation Officer could not collect evidence against the applicant and submitted final report. On protest learned CJM rejected application under section 169 Cr. P.C.. Allegation of preparing forged cheque and making forged signature are against co-accused Shah Alam. It is also argued the Bank has returned the alleged amount to victim as indemnity.

¶8

Prosecution has not collected any evidence against the applicant to prove that the applicant in collusion with co-accused Shah Alam withdrew an amount of Rs.39,20,000/- from the account of the informant's father.

¶9

The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.02.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and co-operate in trial.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submitted that the applicant is a Branch Manager of the Bank and in collusion with the co-accused Shah Alam, the amount of Rs. 39,20,000/- has been transferred in the account of the father of the informant, but the applicant has not paid any heed on the complaint made by the informant rather he threatened the informant not to proceed to take any action against co-accused Shah Alam.

¶11

Considering the rival contentions raised by the the parties, the court finds that there is no evidence against the applicant, who is a Manager of the Bank regarding his involvement with the co-accused Shah Alam and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Anirudh Sharma, who is involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶14

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶15

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶17

Order Date :- 12.12.2022 S.K.S.

¶18

Digitally signed by SUNIL KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.12.13 17:28:26 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anirudh Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anirudh Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Prabhunath Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Bobby Vs State of U.P.

Ayushi Agarwal Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.