Allowed

Sanjai Dixit v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2023ABAIL/12667/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court allowed the anticipatory bail application filed by Sanjai Dixit in a case involving cheating and contravention of Essential Commodities Act. The applicant was released on personal bond with two sureties subject to specific conditions prohibiting interference with evidence and witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions of availability for interrogation, no tampering, and no leaving India.

Sanjai Dixit Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12667 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjai Dixit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Mishra,Vikash Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri O.P. Mishra, 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 F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0312 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Fatehpur Sikari, District Agra.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the co-accused Shanti Prasad who happens to be the Center In-charge of IFFCO, in collusion with the applicant are stated to have exchanged the genuine bags of Di-ammonium Phosphate (DAP) with the spurious DAP between 03.09.2022 and 04.09.2022; the said matter was first reported by one Pushpendra, who is a local farmer.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive; he has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution; there is no evidence whatsoever against the applicant except the confessional statement of the co-accused person Shanti Prasad which is not admissible under the Indian Evidence Act; there is no witness to corroborate the prosecution version with respect to the applicant having sold the said DAP in the black market at the rate of Rs.1350/- per bag; several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him; the applicant has no criminal antecedents; In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but has not been able to point out any evidence except the confessional statement of coaccused. Admittedly, the applicant has no criminal history.

¶10

In view of the above, I find it a fit case to give benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant, hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant, Sanjai Dixit involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court concerned subject to the conditions as below:-

¶12

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

¶13

(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;

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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 based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶20

Order Date :- 4.1.2023 #Vikram/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjai Dixit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjai Dixit 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Julfukar Vs State of U.P. and Anothers

Madan Gopal Gaur Vs State of U.P.

Shehzad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kalamuddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kismtun Vs State of U.P and Another

Deepu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another