Allowed

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2023ABAIL/12602/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Sanjeev Kumar. The court noted the victim was an employee of the defendant's company and investigations depicted false allegations against accomplices. Balancing the gravity of charges against the applicant's clean record, bail was granted subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions regarding presence, evidence tampering, and leaving India.

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

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12602 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Bhan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Surya Bhan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- Sanjeev Kumar with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.688 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 406 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Chhibramau, District Kannauj.

¶7

As per prosecution case, the victim a woman was, by playing fraud on her, made to invest certain money in a Real Estate Company, on the false assurance given by the applicant and three others. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that when the first informant asked the present applicant and his companion to return money they avoided payment thereof and that subsequently she was put to wrongful confinement and was sexually assaulted by them.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that so called victim herself was an employee in that company. Whatever transaction was made, it was on her own volition. It is also pointed out that after investigation allegations of Section 376-D I.P.C. were found false and same has been drooped. It is further pointed out that in this case the implication of three others was also found false and now chargesheet has been submitted against the applicant only. It is argued that the investigation supports theory of the applicant that he has been falsely implicated just to exert pressure on him with ulterior motive. The applicant has no criminal history and no criminal antecedents and he shall abide by all conditions, if any, imposed by this Court.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. However, it is conceded that during investigation not only the allegations of Section 376-D were not found substantiated but also name of three accused persons was dropped.

¶10

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken

¶11

into consideration.

¶12

In the instant case, I considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Sanjeev Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each of the same amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the conditions as below:-

¶14

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

¶15

(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;

¶16

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

¶17

(iv) that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶18

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶19

(vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶21

10. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion at any stage of the case based on material before him.

¶22

Order Date :- 15.2.2023

¶23

Asha

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar 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

Ram Tej Yadav Vs State of U.P and Another

Himanshu Trivedi Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Harijan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Jamaluddin Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Indraprabha Chaudhary and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Another