Allowed

Anil Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2023ABAIL/11632/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted anticipatory bail to Anil Kumar Pandey accused of instigating suicide under Section 306 IPC, holding he has no criminal history and allegations lack overt acts.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each, subject to strict conditions including availability for interrogation and non-interference with evi

Anil Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:154562

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11632 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Anil Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Prakash,Devi Dayal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Kaushik

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Mahendra Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 668 of 2022, under Section 306 of IPC, Police Station Soraon, District Prayagraj, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have taken a loan of Rs.30 lakhs from the husband of the informant thereby leading her husband to commit suicide on 21.09.2022.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has apprehension of his arrest. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has further stated that no ingredients of Section 306 or 107 of IPC have been fulfilled in the case as there is no overt act assigned to the applicant of instigating the deceased to commit suicide. The allegations are all based on speculation.

¶10

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. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶11

On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that there is a suicide note of the deceased person which indicates that the applicant had taken Rs.30 lakhs from the husband of the informant and had usurped the same leading her husband to commit suicide. However, they could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶12

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶13

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Anil Kumar Pandey 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:-

¶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 previous permission of the court;

¶18

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; 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;

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶22

Order Date :- 2.8.2023 Siddhant

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anil Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Pandey 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

Radheshyam Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Salim Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ajeet Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anurag Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yunus Vs State of U.P.