Allowed

Kuldeep Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2023ABAIL/2375/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Kuldeep Sharma in a cheating case. The applicant was released on bail subject to specific conditions, including appearing at interrogation and not tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing personal and two sureties and complying with specific conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:156761

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2375 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Kuldeep Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sonu Malik,Divyansh Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Ms. Sonu Malik, learned counsel for the applicant 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 applicant in Case Crime No.89 of 2022, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at Police StationChatari, District Bulandshahr with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order of this Court dated 29.03.2023. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The applicant is stated to be a witness in the said proceedings whereby the K.C.C. loan was taken by the co-accused person Smt. Rajesh Sharma on the basis of fake documents. The applicant is neither a beneficiary nor the person who had taken the loan. No loan amount has been withdrawn. Learned counsel has further stated that the co-accused Smt. Rajesh Sharma has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 31.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.3559 of 2023. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the

¶11

anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

(ii). that 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;

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 4.8.2023 Ravi Kant

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kuldeep Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Sharma 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

Pwan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanni Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Ahmad Raza Vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishna Pal Singh Tyagi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anjali Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Nitin Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another