Allowed

Monu v. State of U.P.and 2 Others

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2023ABAIL/12881/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for an applicant accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust who also faced a dishonored cheque case, granting bail subject to specific conditions based on Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Released on anticipatory bail pending trial upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties and complying with listed conditions including appearance and cooperation.

Monu Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:225140

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12881 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Monu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Amit Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶9

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.751 of 2022, registered under Sections 420 and 406 IPC at Police StationKotwali Nagar, District Muzaffar Nagar with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶10

As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith other coaccused persons is stated to have usurped an amount of Rs.20,80,000/- of the informant in lieu of tehri iron bars.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He had issued three cheques to the informant and the said cheques were dishonored and the informant has filed a petition under Section 138 N.I. Act, which is still pending. The applicant has been put to double jeopardy. The instant FIR is hit by Section 300 Cr.P.C. and is not maintainable.

¶12

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. 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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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 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.

¶15

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Monu be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

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

¶17

(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;

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 29.11.2023

¶25

Ravi Kant

¶26

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Monu v. State of U.P.and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monu v. State of U.P.and 2 Others

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

Mukta Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bablu @ Jaypal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sandeep Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subash Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Laiq @ Laiq Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj Pandey Vs State of U.P.