Rajpal Saini and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:140473

Court No. - 72

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1446 of 2023 Applicant :- Rajpal Saini And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Shahnawaz Shah Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Syed Shahnawaz Shah, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri R.P. Patel, 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 applicants in Case Crime No.141 of 2022, registered under Section 420 IPC at Police Station- Chandpur, District Bijnor with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant nos.1 & 2 were the Vice-President and Secretary of Rajshree Jansewa Charitable Society and they are stated to have taken an amount of Rs.25,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- from the informant on 21.01.2014 and 22.07.2014, respectively and had promised her that she shall get the amount doubled within a span of seven years. Later on, the applicants are stated to have refused to return the said money owed towards the informant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants were granted interim protection vide order dated 23.3.2023 of this Court and they have not misused the said liberty granted to them. The charge-sheet has already been filed. Learned counsel has further stated that the President and Cashier of the company have not been made a party on the ground that they had paid their party of money to the informant. Learned counsel has stated that no crime can be stated to be in part. The applicants have no criminal history to their credit. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶12

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 applicants.

¶13

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are 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 applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(ii). that 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

[Krishan Pahal, J.]

¶24

Order Date :- 14.7.2023/ Vikas

¶25

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajpal Saini and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajpal Saini and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rinku Yadav @ Praveen Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikas Agnihotri Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jishan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ratnesh Mohan Singh and 2 Other Vs State of U.P. and Another

Qamar Alam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P.