Allowed

Pankaj Pandey v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2023ABAIL/11872/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application under CrPC Section 438 regarding charges of cheating and forgery. The court held the matter civil in nature and granted bail while imposing strict conditions for trial cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Allowed anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to eight specific conditions including availability for interrogation and no tampering.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:225213

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11872 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pankaj Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Pravesh Yadav,Shashank Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Yanendra Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ram Pravesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Yanendra Pandey, 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.403 of 2023, registered under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. at Police Station- Kotwali, District- Ballia with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have duped the informant to the tune of Rs.30 lakh on the pretext of selling a land, the documents of which were shown to the informant. The said documents were found forged. The applicant did not return the said amount remitted to him of which Rs.17.5 lakh was transferred through RTGS, a cheque worth Rs.6 lakh was given to the applicant and in addition to it Rs.6.5 lakh was given in cash.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is a bona fide person and is ready to return the amount of Rs.17.5 lakh, which has been transferred to his account. Learned counsel has stated that no cheque worth Rs.6 lakh was given to the applicant and the rest amount of Rs.6.5 lakh in cash has also not been given to him. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant.

¶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 cooperated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also

¶12

failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that applicant has not paid a single penny to the informant and has retained the said amount in whole, as such, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶14

After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A., considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant and taking into consideration that the matter is of civil in nature regarding money suit, 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- Pankaj Pandey be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond 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 :- 29.11.2023/ Vikas

¶25

[Krishan Pahal, J.]

¶26

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

Pankaj Pandey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj 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

Mukta Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bablu @ Jaypal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sandeep Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subash Vs State of U.P.

Monu Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others

Mohd. Laiq @ Laiq Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another