Allowed

Sudhir Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2023ABAIL/11678/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in criminal proceedings involving cheating and forgery. The bail is subject to specific conditions, including surrendering passports and appearing for interrogation, until the submission of the police report.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; release on anticipatory bail on personal bond with two sureties until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

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

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11678 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sudhir Tiwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Tripathi,Ankesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ankesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Chhavi Pal Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0014 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 12(2) of the Passport Act, Police Station Badahalganj, District Gorakhpur.

¶7

As per prosecution case, the applicant-Sudhir Tiwari got issued a passport in 2009 in the name of Sudhir Tiwari subsequently he got another passport issued in different surname denoting himself as Sudhir Tripathi instead of Sudhir Tiwari.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that his real name is Sudhir Tiwari and that all the documents mentioned his this name only; he never mentioned his different name; he has been implicated in this case out of some misunderstanding and that there has not been any criminal intention to derive any benefit out of this difference; he has no criminal antecedents and he shall abide by the conditions, if any, imposed by this Court.

¶9

The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by learned AGA for the State. It is pointed out that the applicant got issued a second passport with minor differences in his name on the basis of a voter I-card of different name, however, no purpose on behalf of such change could be disclosed by the other side; it is said that the matter is still under investigation.

¶10

In case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by the Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider

¶11

nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶12

In the instant case, I considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case. In my view, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶13

Let the applicant, Sudhir Tiwari involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on anticipatory bail till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each of the same amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the conditions as below:-

¶14

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; In addition he shall appear before the investigation officer concerned and shall also surrender his both the passports within 15 days from today. He shall also get his statement recorded within this period;

¶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 previous permission of the court;

¶17

(iv) that 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

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

¶21

10. It is made clear that observations made herein shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion at any stage of the case based on material before him.

¶22

Order Date :- 16.2.2023 #Vikram/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sudhir Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Tiwari 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

Jamaluddin Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Indraprabha Chaudhary and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijendra Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ruby Sharma Vs State of U.P and Another

Nadeem Vs State of U.P. and Another