Allowed

Swayam Prakash v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2023ABAIL/2094/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Swayam Prakash in a cheating case. The applicant, alleged to be a sample collector, sought protection fearing arrest despite lack of credible evidence against him. Conditions included a personal bond and prohibitions against tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:171199

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2094 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Swayam Prakash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- R S Dubey,Savita Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Swayam Prakash in connection with Case Crime No. 465 of 2022, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 120-B IPC, P.S. Sector-63, District Central (Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar).

¶8

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

It is further submitted that since the applicant is a simple sample collector, he has nothing to do with the kidney transplant matter and the hospital. It is next submitted that the applicant has been cooperative with the I.O. of the case during the course of investigation and he is having no criminal antecedents to his credit and as such, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶11

It appears from perusal of record that the applicant is alleged to have taken Rs.40,000/- from the informant through google pay application for test/investigation of HLA-DSA and the blood sample for the same was collected by him. However a specific plea has been taken at para 8 of the affidavit that the present applicant is only a sample collector in the Lal Pathology and he has no

¶12

concern with the preparation of the pathology report. It has also been submitted that out of Rs.40,000/-, the applicant has paid back Rs.36,000/- to the informant as subsequently the informant has instructed to change the plan of the test, accordingly only Rs.4000/-were kept by the present applicant. Charge sheet has been submitted in this matter.

¶13

Although the charge sheet has been submitted in this matter, but 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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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, llikelihood 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.

¶16

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant 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 applicant till conclusion of trial in the matter.

¶17

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his 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 :-

¶19

(i) 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.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

¶24

Order Date :- 24.8.2023 Shivangi

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Swayam Prakash v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swayam Prakash 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

Rajkumari Vs State of U.P.

Rajul Vs State of U.P.

Sudama Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sarvendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munish Kumar Rajpoot Vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another