Allowed

Rajesh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2023ABAIL/13767/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application to Rajesh in a cheating and forgery case. The court held him liable to be enlarged on bail citing Sushila Aggarwal, imposing conditions regarding appearance, non-interference with witnesses, and ensuring availability for investigation.

What did the court decide?

Release on anticipatory bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions including appearance, non-interference, and availability for investigation.

Rajesh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:235897

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13767 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ehtesham Afsar Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Ehtesham Afsar Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.99 of 2023, registered under Sections 457, 380 and 411 IPC at Police StationMeerganj, District Bareilly with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present case. His name has come up in the statement of the arrested co-accused person Mahabir, which is not admissible in evidence. 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. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. 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.

¶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

¶12

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.

¶13

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Rajesh 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:-

¶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 the previous permission of the court;

¶17

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted 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

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned 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 :- 13.12.2023 Ravi Kant

¶23

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶24

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

Rajesh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh 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

Sunil Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nati @ Lallu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Rekha Devi Vs State of U.P.

Danveer Vs State of U.P.

Dependra Dhar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahnvaj Vs State of U.P. and Another