Allowed

Sarvesh Kumar @ Sarvesh Saxena v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Oct 2023ABAIL/11480/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed anticipatory bail application of a retired bank manager accused of cheating and forgery under IPC sections 420, 467, 468, and 471. Bail granted subject to strict conditions including appearance in court and no tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Accused enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial by furnishing personal bond and two sureties on fulfilling specified conditions.

Sarvesh Kumar @ Sarvesh Saxena Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:206685

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11480 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumar @ Sarvesh Saxena Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, 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. 419 of 2018, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. at Police Station- Ganj, District- Rampur with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the co-accused persons in collusion with the then Field Officer and Bank Manager and one unknown person are stated to have duped the bank to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs by producing fake documents.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant was posted at the bank as Manager from 5.8.2014 to 30.6.2016, i.e. less than two years. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant had acted on the basis of report of the then Field Officer and the forgery, if any, is committed by him. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant has been exonerated by the department in the said inquiry setup regarding issuing of said loan. The applicant is a retired person and has no criminal history to his credit. There is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence.

¶11

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. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant undertakes that he has co-

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Sarvesh Kumar @ Sarvesh Saxena 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:-

¶16

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

¶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 leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 30.10.2023/ Vikas

¶25

[Krishan Pahal, J.]

¶26

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

Sarvesh Kumar @ Sarvesh Saxena v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh Kumar @ Sarvesh Saxena 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

Pankaj Rao Vs State of U.P.

Shivanand Ram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Maikoo Mansuri Vs State of U.P.

Saddam Kha Vs State of U.P.

Phoolchand Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Anuj Tripathi and Another Vs State of U.P.