Allowed

Sheela and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2023ABAIL/14360/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application for two applicants charged under cheating and forgery sections. The court held that the application was a fit case and granted bail till the end of the trial.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till end of trial on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount subject to specified conditions.

Sheela and Another Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:143561

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 14360 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Sheela And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶8

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicants - Sheela and Vikram in connection with Case Crime No.19 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, Police Station Sidhari, District Azamgarh.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of their arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. They have been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that the applicant no.1 is the bonafide purchaser of the property in question and applicant no.2 is only the marginal witness of the sale deed executed in respect of the said property. It is further submitted that no forgery or cheating has been committed by the applicants. Applicant no.2 is neither the vendor nor the vendee in the alleged sale deed and no consideration has been passed in his favour. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, anticipatory bail was granted to the applicants by this Court vide order dated 18.8.2021 till submission of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. and the same has not been misused by the applicants. It is further submitted that the said protection was extended subsequently from time to time. It is further submitted that the applicants have been cooperative during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that now after filing of the charge-sheet, no custodial interrogation is required in this matter from the applicants.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶11

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶12

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶13

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶14

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till end of the trial in the matter.

¶15

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶16

In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶17

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter;

¶18

(ii) The applicants 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 / her from disclosing such

¶19

facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶20

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶21

In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicants.

¶22

Order Date :- 14.7.2023 ss

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sheela and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheela and Another 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

Arman Mehandi Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Kumar Pathak and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Iqbal Khan Vs State of U.P.

Veer Singh @ Jai Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Kumar Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Kumar Vs State of U.P.