Allowed

Sarvesh Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Civil Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC6 Oct 2023/2187/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in an FIR alleging cheating and forgery. Considering that the charge-sheet had been submitted, co-beneficiaries were exonerated, and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the court held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties.

Sarvesh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home)… — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:64531

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2187 of 2023 Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Civil Sectt. Lko

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Siddhartha Sinha,Arun Sinha,Mohammad Zeeshan Lari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Siddhartha Sinha, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, learned A.G.A-I appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.04 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Jankipuram, District Lucknow.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 06.01.2019 against eight named persons, including the applicant and two unnamed persons, stating that a payment of Rs. 6,12,04,962/- was made by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Etah in the name of the informant whereas the informant has not submitted any tender or entered into any contract with the irrigation department. The beneficiaries of the amount paid under the contract included the applicant.

¶9

After investigation, a charge-sheet has been submitted on 16.10.2019 against the applicant and one Vishal Kannaujia, regarding whom it came to light that the bank account in which

¶10

the payment had been made was opened using photographs of Vishal Kannaujia.

¶11

It came to light during investigation, that the informant had executed a power of attorney in favour of one Brij Raj and Brij Raj has submitted the tender, entered into the contract, carried out the work and had obtained payment. The name of Brij Raj has not been included as an accused in the charge-sheet.

¶12

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and he has submitted that the offence is of a heinous nature.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that only this much has come to light that the applicant had received some money under a contract executed by co-accused Brij Raj that other beneficiaries of amounts have been exonerated by the Investigating Officer; that the charge-sheet already having been submitted, there appears to be no need for custodial interrogation of the applicant and that the the applicant has no previous criminal history and without making any observations which may affect the outcome of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶14

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed . In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant- Sarvesh Kumar Verma before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:

¶15

(i). That the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each

¶16

date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted;

¶17

(ii). That 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 officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶18

(iii). That the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶19

In default of any of the conditions mentioned above or it is found that applicant has obtained this order concealing any material facts, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for vacation of this order.

¶20

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 6.10.2023 Preeti.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sarvesh Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Civil Sectt. Lko

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

Durgesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Add. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Vinod @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Mahendra @ Mahesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Kirti Nath Tiwari Vs Directorate of Enforcement, Govt. of India , Its Assistant Director (Pmla) Somnath Choudhary

Bhanu Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. a. C. S. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. Lko. and Another

Manish Agarwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. A.C.S / Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another