Allowed

Surendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Aug 2023ABAIL/1058/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to the applicant, alleged to be falsely implicated in a commercial film investment fraud case. The High Court allowed the application by relying on Supreme Court precedent, imposing standard conditions including cooperation with investigation and prohibition on leaving India.

What did the court decide?

Accused released forthwith on anticipatory bail for two sureties subject to non-judicial recording and specific conduct conditions.

Surendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:163708

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1058 of 2023 Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam,Rajiv Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajiv Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.1140 of 2019, registered under Sections 419, 420, 406 I.P.C. at Police StationLanka, District Varanasi with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the applicant and his brother have opened a company named Ovation Multizone Pvt. Ltd., as such, bank account was also opened in the name of the company. In addition to the present company, two more companies were opened by the applicant and his family members. The informant and several other persons are stated to have invested a large amount of money in the said company as the company was involved in producing the films. The film made pursuant to the said agreement is said to have flopped, as such, the company incurred heavy loss, thereby, there are allegations of usurping the amount of several investors, although they were given postdated cheques, which were bounced.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The case under Section 138 of NI Act has been converted into that of I.P.C. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The applicant was silent partner in the company. The company is a private limited company and the applicant is not liable in it. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant was granted interim protection vide order dated 29.3.2023 of this Court. Learned counsel has stated that all the four FIRs have been instituted regarding similar allegations. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have

¶10

also been touched upon at length. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶13

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Surendra Kumar Yadav be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

(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;

¶16

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶17

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶18

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶19

(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶20

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶22

Order Date :- 11.8.2023/ Vikas

¶23

[Krishan Pahal, J.]

¶24

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Surendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar Yadav v. State 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankur Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ratan Manglani Vs State of U.P.

Yogendra Singh @ Bade Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jwala Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Istekhar @ Kala Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others