Allowed

Rakesh Mittal @ Rakesh Kumar Mittal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Oct 2023ABAIL/11820/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application by Rakesh Mittal in a case involving cheating and forgery charges. The High Court allowed the application, releasing the applicant on bail with conditions based on the Supreme Court judgment in Sushila Aggarwal, despite prior dismissal for want of prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on anticipatory bail pending trial granted subject to conditions of interrogation compliance, no tampering, and appearance in court.

Rakesh Mittal @ Rakesh Kumar Mittal Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:198882

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11820 of 2022 Applicant :- Rakesh Mittal @ Rakesh Kumar Mittal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Ahmed Faizan,Fatma Anjum,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Ms. Fatma Anjum, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.393 of 2020, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 414 and 411 I.P.C. at Police Station- Brihampuri, District- Meerut with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

This is the second anticipatory bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first anticipatory bail application was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 22.9.2022.

¶9

As per prosecution story, two co-accused persons, namely, Mohsin @ Sonu and Jaid were arrested by police on 28.6.2020 and two scooty, which were stolen property, were recovered at their pointing out.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The name of the applicant has come up in the statement of arrested co-accused persons, which is not admissible in evidence, although he has been arrayed as an accused in the FIR. The applicant was granted interim protection by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2020 and had not misused it, but due to non-appearance of advocate of the applicant the case was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 22.9.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.5906 of 2020.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. 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

¶12

upon at length. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel has stated that 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.

¶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- Rakesh Mittal @ Rakesh Kumar Mittal 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 :- 13.10.2023/ Vikas

¶25

[Krishan Pahal, J.]

¶26

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

Rakesh Mittal @ Rakesh Kumar Mittal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Mittal @ Rakesh Kumar Mittal 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

Aryansh Pathariya Vs State of U.P.

Mujjamil Vs State of U.P.

Hafiz @ Mohd. Hafiz and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sachin Vs State of U.P.

Kuddus and Another Vs State of U.P.

Devi Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another