Allowed

Ashish Kashyap v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 Nov 2023ABAIL/11935/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to Ashish Kashyap in a case involving cheating and forgery pending the investigation, subject to furnishing a bond and adhering to specific conditions regarding interrogation and travel.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each.

Ashish Kashyap Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:225827

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11935 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ashish Kashyap Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Ashish Kashyap seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 287 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police StationKamalganj, District- Farrukhabad.

¶8

It is alleged in the FIR that the present applicant and co-accused Pradip Kumar who were working as Block Motivators (Swachh Bharat Mission) by S.B.M(G) under Phase-2 procured some forged documents by manipulating the signatures of B.D.O and Gram Vikas Adhikari to make a wrongful gain in favour of some beneficiaries. FIR was lodged on 11.7.2023 and investigation started, which is going on.

¶9

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is further submitted that the applicant is working on contact basis as Block Motivator, he had absolutely no occasion or motive to procure the forged signature as alleged in the FIR. It is further submitted that no such forged document has been collected by the I.O. during investigation so far. It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit and he is cooperating with the investigation. It is also submitted that earlier Cr.Misc. Writ Petition No. 11558/2023 was preferred by the present applicant, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 26.7.2023 without granting any relief to the applicant and the said order has been annexed along with the supplementary affidavit. It is further

¶10

submitted that no embezzlement or misappropriation of public money has been alleged against the present applicant. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶12

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶13

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶14

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶15

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶16

In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶18

(ii) 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶20

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant.

¶21

Order Date :- 30.11.2023 Fhd

¶22

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashish Kashyap v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Kashyap 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

Aamir Raza and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Somwati Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Bauaa @ Randhir Singh @ Gajendra Pratap Vs State of U.P.

Bhola Mistri @ Kalyan Singh Vs State of U.P. . and Another

Saurabh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others