Allowed

Kailash Solanki @ Kailash Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2023ABAIL/2426/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Allahabad allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by Kailash Solanki, who faced charges of cheating and criminal conspiracy. The court relied on Supreme Court principles, imposed standard conditions including bail on personal and two sureties, and permitted the applicant cooperation in investigation.

What did the court decide?

Released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each with conditions.

Kailash Solanki @ Kailash Singh Vs State of U.P. and… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:137248

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2426 of 2022 Applicant :- Kailash Solanki @ Kailash Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar,Purushottam Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Purushottam Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, 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.232 of 2020, registered under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC at Police Station- Gabhana, District Aligarh with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by this Court vide order dated 27.05.2021. The applicant has not misused the said opportunity granted earlier and has co-operated during investigation.

¶10

As per prosecution story, Rs.1,00,500/- were transferred to the account of the applicant for a machine putting velvet coating pencil and Rs.50,000/- were given in cash, as such the machine was supplied to the informant, but the said business did not proceed any further, as such the informant has been duped by the applicant.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The matter is purely of business transaction and the applicant could not guarantee a person about his business being successful or not. Learned counsel has further stated that only the bailable warrants have been issued against the applicant. The applicant is on bail in the case instituted prior to the present FIR. Subsequent to it, two more case have been instituted against the applicant of similar nature. 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

¶12

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.

¶13

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 applicant.

¶14

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.

¶15

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Kailash Solanki @ Kailash Singh 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

(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;

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶25

Order Date :- 12.7.2023/Ravi Kant

¶26

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

Kailash Solanki @ Kailash Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Solanki @ Kailash Singh 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

Baburam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Raw Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nazim Vs State of U.P.

Radha Charan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Masoom Ali @ Syed Masoom Mehdi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Himanshi Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Another