Allowed

Anjali v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Nov 2023ABAIL/12119/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, in an anticipatory bail application, granted bail to the applicant alleged in an offence under IPC sections regarding cheating and forgery, imposing standard conditions and citing Sushila Aggarwal.

What did the court decide?

anticipatory bail in the pending trial case on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.50,000 each subject to specific conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:217456

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12119 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Anjali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Maurya

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Manoj Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the informant.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.60 of 2023, under Sections 143, 406, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Pipiganj, District Gorakhpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant. The applicant is a lady. She has no concern with the alleged incident. As per allegation, Rs.23 lakh has been given by the informant to Raj Kumar Yadav, who is the husband of the applicant for purchasing his land, but the opposite party no.2 did not execute the sale deed and after receiving the consideration amount, instead of execution of sale deed, the informant has given appointment letter, which was found forged. He further submits that it is an admitted case that there is a dispute between the husband of the applicant and the opposite party no.2. A complaint has also been filed by the husband of the applicant beig complaint case no.3696 of 2023 against the informant, which is still pending. Due to this reason, as a counterblast, the informant has lodged the impugned FIR after two years delayed without any plausible explanation on false and fabricated ground just to harass and pressure the applicant. He further submits that the investigation is going on and till date no charge sheet has been filed. The applicant is having no criminal antecedent.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶10

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, she is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶11

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Anjali, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.

¶13

(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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall surrender her passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Her passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶16

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶17

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 .

¶18

(vii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶19

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at

¶20

liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 16.11.2023

¶23

Ajeet

¶24

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anjali v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjali 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

Sayra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashwani @ Guddu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pushpendri Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Salim Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ganga Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another