Allowed

Aashish Singh Rajpoot v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2023ABAIL/13863/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. A.B.P. No. 13863 of 2023, Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Aashish Singh Rajpoot in a complaint case involving Cheque Dishonour. The order was framed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. with standard conditions, including financial sureties and a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to seven specific conditions including cooperation wi

Aashish Singh Rajpoot Vs State of U.P… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:237845

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13863 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Aashish Singh Rajpoot Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi,Akshay Raghuvanshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Sri S.K. Tiwari, Advocate has file his Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 today in the Court, the same is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Akshay Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Complaint Case No.1680 of 2021 (Mahesh Kumar Mudgil Vs. Ashish Singh Roajpoot), under Section 406 I.P.C., P.S.- VIjay Nagar, District- Ghaziabad.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted that there is dispute between tenant and landlord regarding maintenance of society and applicant has issued cheques in favour of society which was dishonored due to insufficient balance. He submitted that the complainant/opposite party no.2 has no grievance and if the complainant has any grievance, he should file a case under Section 138 NI Act. The complainant has no locus to file the present complaint. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶10

Sri S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of

¶11

the applicant.

¶12

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Aashish Singh Rajpoot , involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.

¶15

(ii) 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.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶19

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the

¶20

Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶21

(vii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶22

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶23

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands allowed .

¶24

Order Date :- 15.12.2023 Krishna*

¶25

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aashish Singh Rajpoot v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aashish Singh Rajpoot 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

Deen Dayal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahees Vs State of U.P.

Virendra Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jayprakash Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home and Another

Bachhu Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.