Allowed

Dheeru Trivedi @ Dhirendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2023ABAIL/11128/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case involving cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court imposed standard conditions including appearance, non-tampering with evidence, and non-interfering with witnesses, citing Sushila Aggarwal jurisprudence.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on furnishing of personal and two sureties subject to standard bail conditions.

Dheeru Trivedi @ Dhirendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:200200

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11128 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Dheeru Trivedi @ Dhirendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.M. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.295 of 2023, registered under Sections 457, 380 and 411 IPC at Police Station- Rura, District Kanpur Dehat with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the co-accused person Arman was apprehended by the informant and was produced before the police who arrested him alongwith 50 Kg. of siphon pipe used for irrigation and it came to light that the same was sold at the shop of the applicant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The said pipe has not been recovered from his shop. Learned counsel has further stated that the said statement is based on suspicion only. 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 also been touched upon at length. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. 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

¶12

submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

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.

¶14

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Dheeru Trivedi @ Dhirendra Kumar 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

(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;

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 17.10.2023 Ravi Kant

¶24

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dheeru Trivedi @ Dhirendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheeru Trivedi @ Dhirendra Kumar 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

Mahtab Alam Vs State of U.P.

Dashrath and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mustkim Vs State of U.P.

Vineet Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Richa Verma and Another Vs State of U.P.

Horilal Vs State of U.P. and Another