Allowed

Bharat Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2023ABAIL/12246/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court allowed anticipatory bail for Bharat Kumar in a case involving charges of corruption, data manipulation, and cheating. Bail granted on personal bond and sureties subject to strict conditions regarding interrogation, evidence tampering, and witness harassment. Judgment relied on Supreme Court precedent in Sushila Aggarwal.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on anticipatory bail with personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties, subject to seven specific conditions including appearance in trial and non-interference.

Bharat Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12246 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Bharat Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vishal Tandon Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vishal Tandon, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case No. 16064 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 0715 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 465 IPC and Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, Section 66 I.T. (Amendment) Act, 2000, Police Station- Kotwali, District Fatehpur with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the Supply Inspector has filed the present FIR on the basis of report of the Food Commissioner, Lucknow wherein it was alleged that the applicant had conducted interpolation in the data base of the card holders of the area and have usurped the public money by diverting wheat and rice allotted to the genuine card holders.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The final report has been submitted without application of mind. There is no evidence against the applicant whatsoever of having undertaken any kind of fraud in the feeding of data. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which,

¶9

as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. Learned counsel for 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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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 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.

¶12

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Bharat Kumar be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶14

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

¶15

facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶16

that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶17

that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶18

that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶19

that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶20

that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶22

Order Date :- 5.1.2023 Arti

¶23

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

Bharat Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Kumar 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

Sharidhar Pandit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amla Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anish Khan Vs State of U.P.and Another

Rajesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Yogesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek and Anr. Vs State of U.P.