Allowed

Aditya Khatri v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2022BAIL/3547/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a bail application filed by Aditya Khatri. The applicant, an administrative employee falsely implicated in cybercrime charges, submitted an affidavit of innocence and an undertaking to cooperate with the trial. The court noted that co-accused had already been granted bail and, observing the fitness of the case, enlarged the applicant on bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Aditya Khatri is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of appearing for trial and not tampering with evidence.

Aditya Khatri Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3547 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Aditya Khatri Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Shishodia,Gyan Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Shishodia, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 8 of 2021, under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 66, 66-C, 66D, 72, 73, 74 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Saharanpur during pendency of the trial in the Court below.

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by an Inspector of Police against 5 named accused persons and the applicant is not included amongst those persons.

¶8

Briefly stated, the F.I.R. allegation is that the Chief Election Officer had written a letter dated 11.08.2022 to the District Election Officer, Saharanpur and Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur stating that voter identity card are being printed in violation of the Rules through a website www.justpancard.com. In furtherance of the aforesaid complaint, the police conducted a raid and apprehended the accused Vipul Saini. Vipul Saini gave a statement implicating other named accused persons, Arman Malik, Vikesh Kumar, Harsha @ Hariom, Deepak Mehta @ Technical Mehta but he did not implicate the applicant.

¶9

The applicant's name came into light in the statement of one of the co-accused persons Niyaz Alam when his statement was recorded on 14.08.2021 during investigation. On 24.08.2021, the named accused person Vipul Saini also gave a statement implicating the applicant.

¶10

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in his statement recorded on 12.08.2021, the accused Vipul Saini had

¶11

reiterated the version of the F.I.R., and he did not mention the name of the applicant.

¶12

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has categorically been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated and that there is no cogent evidence against the applicant. It has further been stated in the affidavit that after completing M.Tech, the applicant has been working as a Data Entry Operator since 2012 with the Government on contractual basis and there has been no complaint against the applicant. It has also been stated that the applicant has no authority to finalize the creation of voter identity cards, as one time password of the same is sent to the Assistant Election Registrar Officer and the applicant's duty is only to fill up the form, as received from the customer, in the system. It has also been stated in the affidavit that the applicant is the sole bread earner of his family.

¶13

A categorical undertaking has been given in the affidavit that the applicant will co-operate with the trial and that there is no chance of his absconding or tampering with the evidence.

¶14

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the coaccused, namely, Vipul Saini, Mohd. Niyaz Alam @ Arman Malik, Sanjeev Mehta, Deepak Mehta, Vikesh Kumar, Harishankar, Ashish Jain have been granted bail by means of orders dated 11.07.2022, 24.02.2022, 15.02.2022, 31.03.2022, 22.03.2022, 07.02.2022 and 05.03.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 55599 of 2021, 5878 of 2022, 1314 of 2022, 1309 of 2022, 4736 of 2022, 2561 of 2022 and 55920 of 2021 respectively.

¶15

It has further been submitted that the case set up against the applicant is not different than the case set against the other coaccused persons, who have already been enlarged on bail.

¶16

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the fact that the case set up against the applicant is similar to that set up against the other co-accused persons, who have already been released on bail.

¶17

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶18

In the light of preceding discussion and without making any observation on the merit of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant Aditya Khatri be released on bail in Case Crime No. 8 of 2021, under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 66, 66-C, 66-D, 72, 73, 74 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶21

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶22

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶23

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

¶25

Order Date :- 18.7.2022

¶26

Jaswant

¶27

Digitally signed by JASWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.07.18 19:12:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aditya Khatri v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Khatri 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogesh Prasad (in Wria 3799 of 2022) Vs U.O.I. Thru.Secy. Information and Technology and Deptt. of Broadcasting and I.T.,New Delhi and Ors.

Rakesh Vs State of U.P.

Bhoora @ Shavej Vs State of U.P.

Saleem Qureshi Vs State of U.P.

Harsha @ Hariom Vs State of U.P.

Firoj Khan Vs State of U.P.