Allowed

Satish Kumar Mittal and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2023ABAIL/271/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application, the Allahabad High Court held that a case for bail is made out. The court imposed standard conditions, including appearance before the trial court and prohibitions against tampering with evidence or witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Grants anticipatory bail to the three applicants on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each, subject to six specific conditions.

Satish Kumar Mittal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 271 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Satish Kumar Mittal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vishal Tandon Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Vishal Tandon, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the papers on record.

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants- Satish Kumar Mittal, Sunil Kumar Jain & Sunil Singal seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.1004 of 2018, under sections- 420, 465, 468, 470, 471 I.P.C. and Sections- 3/7 Essential Commodities Act and Section- 66D I.T. (Amendment) Act, 2000 and Section- 34 of Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Muzaffarnagar.

¶7

As per the prosecution case, the present applicants who were licensee for fair price shop, manipulated the database of some ration card holders by changing the Aadhar data in the E-pos machine and sold/distributed the ration to the persons, who were not entitled for the same. On the basis of this, an F.I.R. was lodged against 17 licensed fair price shops.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicants that it is not possible for licensed shop owners to manipulate the database in the E-pos machine unless they possess a very good technical expertise. It is further contended that the function of E-pos machine involves only putting thumb impression and details of the quantity of ration, related things and the quantity of ration to be distributed to the persons entitled is displayed. It is also submitted that they are named in the F.I.R. by the superior officers just to save themselves from prosecution/enquiry.

¶9

The anticipatory bail application is opposed on behalf of the State.

¶10

In case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶11

In the instant case, 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 on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶12

Let the applicants- Satish Kumar Mittal, Sunil Kumar Jain & Sunil Singal involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on

¶13

anticipatory bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each of the same amount to the satisfaction of court concerned, subject to the conditions as below:-

¶14

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

¶15

(ii) that the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with

¶16

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;

¶17

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

¶18

(iv) that 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

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicants.

¶22

10. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion at any stage of the case based on material before him.

¶23

Order Date :- 27.1.2023 Shivangi

¶24

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

Satish Kumar Mittal and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar Mittal and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

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

Tuntun Kumar Byahut Vs State of U.P.

Mr. Suresh Khatua Vs State of U.P.

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

Yasmeen Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pavan Kumar Kaushik Vs State of U.P. and Another