Allowed

Dharmesh Narayan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Nov 2023ABAIL/11959/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Dharmesh Narayan in a cheating and forgery case pending investigation. The application was allowed with standard conditions, including a bond deposit and restrictions on movement and witness interference, valid until the filing of the police report.

What did the court decide?

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

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:218117

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11959 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Dharmesh Narayan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shishir Kumar Singh,Dhiraj Kumar Upadhyay 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 - Dharmesh Narayan seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.347 of 2023 (Case No.4695 of 2023) under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Jiyanpur, District Azamgarh.

¶8

It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the accused Rakesh Mishra @ Rajesh Mishra grabbed money from many persons on the false pretext of providing some job to them. Some money in parts was also deposited in the bank account of co-accused persons including the present applicant. F.I.R. was lodged on 27.5.2023 and investigation started, which is still going on.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He has been falsely implicated in this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on into the matter. It is further submitted that the applicant has absolutely no concern with the alleged offence. Contents of the F.I.R. are false to the extent that some money was deposited in the bank account of the applicant. It is further submitted that the co-accused Akash Mishra, having identical role, has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 31.7.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. - 7920 of 2023. It is also submitted that the applicant is cooperating with the investigation. He has no criminal history to his credit. No custodial interrogation is required in the matter. In case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would

¶10

obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

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

¶12

In the present case, it has been conceded at this stage by the learned A.G.A. that no money in respect of the alleged offence has been deposited in the bank account of the applicant. Applicant is cooperating with the investigation. Prima facie no custodial interrogation is required in this matter.

¶13

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, likelihood 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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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 the filing of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶16

10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the filing of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court 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:-

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 16.11.2023 ss

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dharmesh Narayan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmesh Narayan 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

Sachin Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Birju Vs State of U.P.

Seema Devi Vs State of U.P.

Rajbala Walia @ Madhubala Walia and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another