Allowed

Kishori Lal Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2023ABAIL/12610/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Consumer Court allowed anticipatory bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving cheating and conspiracy, subject to furnishing a bond with sureties and complying with specific conditions like appearing for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail until submission of chargesheet on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties under specific conditions.

Kishori Lal Sharma Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12610 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kishori Lal Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Singh,Mayank Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mayank Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, 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- Kishori Lal Sharma with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.163 of 2022, under Sections 323, 420, 406, 328 and 120B I.P.C., P.S. Atrauli, District Aligarh.

¶7

As per the allegations in the F.I.R., one Arjun and a manager conned the first informant into entering a deal of selling property with the assurance that the first informant shall get an extra benefit of Rs. 20 lakh which they shall divide between themselves. Tempted by such an offer, the first informant agreed. The accused person asked him to arrange for money in cash. The first informant went to them with Rs. 5 lakhs in cash. He was forced to smell some intoxicant and they escaped with cash.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that he is not named in the F.I.R.. His name has, for the first time, come in the statement of coaccused Vishnu. The other co-accused Sarvesh Devi did not take his name as one of the persons complicit in the conspiracy. It is also stated that the applicant has no criminal history and that he shall abide by the condition if any imposed by this Court. The matter is still under investigation.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. However, it is conceded that the applicant's name though came in the statement of one of the co-accused but other co-accused did not take his name and that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶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 into consideration.

¶11

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, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶12

Let the applicant Kishori Lal Sharma involved in the aforesaid case

¶13

crime number be released on anticipatory bail till submission of chargesheet on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each of the same amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following condition that the applicant shall appear before the investigating Officer within 15 days from today and get his statement recorded. He shall furnish an affidavit at the earliest before the concerned court below that he actually complied with the aforesaid condition and with further 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

09. 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 :- 9.2.2023 Asha

¶23

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

Kishori Lal Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishori Lal Sharma 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

Jitendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anothers

Mahir and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Savitri Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shailendri Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hakeem Azad Jarrah Alias Azad Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Bhan Vs State of U.P.and Another