Allowed

Banshi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2023ABAIL/2251/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous application, the Hon'ble Court granted anticipatory bail to applicants Banshi and Manju. The court imposed conditions including availability before the court, no interference with witnesses, and no attempt to commit similar offences.

What did the court decide?

Grants anticipatory bail till the end of trial upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties subject to conditions of appearance and non-interference with witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2251 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Banshi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amarendra Mani Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants - Banshi and Smt. Manju in Case Crime No.126 of 2021, under Sections 420, 120-B, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station - Chhata, District – Mathura.

¶7

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

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have no concern with the present matter. They have been falsely implicated in this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer without collecting any cogent and credible evidence has filed charge-sheet against the applicants. Applicants have made full cooperation during investigation. Applicants' case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. If the applicants are enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty and will cooperate with the investigation. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest by the police any time.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer.

¶10

It is alleged against the the applicant no.2 Manju that she is the wife of applicant no.1 Banshi and the land has been purchased by the aforesaid Manju from Raju Singh, who is said to be the husband of the informant Smt. Sharda Devi. The said Raju Singh had no authority or right to sell the land, as the land was under the title and ownership of Smt. Sharda Devi. It appears from the perusal of the record that consideration for the said sale has been given by the present applicants and fraud, if any, has been played by the husband of the informant. As submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant, co-accused Jeetan, who is said to be the

¶11

mediator, has been granted anticipatory bail till the end of trial. The matter seems to be punishable maximum seven years of imprisonment. Criminal history assigned to the applicants has been explained.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicants.

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicants - Banshi and Smt. Manju in the aforesaid case crime, they shall shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of 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 concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

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

¶15

(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 facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶16

(iii) The applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

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

¶18

(v) 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.

¶19

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

¶20

The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

¶21

Order Date :- 4.4.2023 ss

¶22

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

Banshi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banshi and Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Udayveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Praveen Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shobha Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tahir Vs State of U.P.

Vivek Vs State of U.P.

Anjesh Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another