Allowed

Saroj Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2023ABAIL/10400/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. requiring a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties. The applicant was ordered to cooperate with the investigation and adhere to specific conditions regarding inducement, travel, and court appearances, invoking the Sushila Aggarwal guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted conditional on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and adherence to specific conditions including cooperation with investigations and surrender of pass

Saroj Sharma Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:190466

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10400 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Saroj Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brajesh Kumar Solanki Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ankit Agarval

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Brajesh Kumar Solanki, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Ankit Agarval, learned counsel for the informant.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.103 of 2023,under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station - B.B. Nagar, District - Bulandshahr.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant. As per impugned FIR, there are four accused persons out of which one co-accused person, namely, Permanand Sharma has already been granted anticipatory by this Court vide order dated 10.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.8982 of 2023, copy of the same has been filed as Annexure No.3 to the affidavit filed in support of the application.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶10

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶11

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant-Saroj Sharma, involved in the

¶12

aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.

¶14

(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 officer.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶17

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶18

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 .

¶19

(vii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶20

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 4.10.2023

¶23

A. Prajapati

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saroj Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Thakur @ Ajay Singh Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vyash Kanhiya Chanchal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Umesh Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another