Allowed

Rinkul Goswami v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC31 Oct 2023ABAIL/11567/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the applicant in a case involving cheating and criminal breach of trust. The grant was predicated on the principle of parity with a co-accused who had already obtained bail, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the charges. The applicant was directed to furnish a bond with sureties and adhere to standa

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and complying with specified conditions.

Rinkul Goswami Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:207994

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11567 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rinkul Goswami Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anjani Kumar Shahwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 513 of 2023, under Sections 420, 406 IPC, Police Station Banna Devi, District Aligarh, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has the apprehension of his arrest and has claimed parity with the co-accused, Munendar @ Munendar Kumar Sharma, who has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 18.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 11566 of 2023. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. Since the case of the applicant is at par with the co-accused who has already been granted anticipatory bail, the applicant is also entitled for the same on the ground of parity.

¶9

The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned AGA. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Apex Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has

¶11

made out a case for anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶12

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Rinkul Goswami involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶13

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

¶14

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;

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶20

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶21

Order Date :- 31.10.2023 Shalini

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rinkul Goswami v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinkul Goswami 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

Saddam Kha Vs State of U.P.

Phoolchand Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Anuj Tripathi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Radheyshyam @ Bholoo Vs State of U.P. and Another

Majid Vs State of U.P.

Kallu Vs State of U.P. and Another