Allowed

Suraj Bhan v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2023ABAIL/2973/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC involving a dispute over forged documents. The bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions. Investigation is still ongoing.

What did the court decide?

Applicant granted anticipatory bail till submission of chargesheet on furnishing personal bond with two sureties subject to specified conditions.

Suraj Bhan Vs State of U.P.and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2973 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Suraj Bhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar Singh,B.N.Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Manish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State assisted by Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, Briefholder and perused the record.

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 0034 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kakadev, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

As per allegations in the FIR, the applicant got issued a forged income certificate in 2013 which was cancelled by the Tehsildar, Sadar in 2018; on the basis of these facts the first informant got registered an FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the first informant is applicant's neighbour and there is a dispute over water drainage between the two houses; the first informant filed this FIR with some ulterior motives and to put pressure on him; it is next contended that when the matter was investigated upon no such papers could be procured by the investigating officer as none was available; as far as the history of two criminal cases is concerned, it is pointed out that those cases too were registered at the behest of same complainant/first informant.

¶9

The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by learned AGA for the State, however, it is conceded that the papers which were stated to be forged and manipulated could not be procured; it is further pointed out that the investigation is still going on.

¶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

¶11

evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶12

In the instant case, I considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, In my view, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶13

Let the applicant, Suraj Bhan involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on anticipatory bail till submission of chargesheet on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each of the same amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the conditions as below:-

¶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 previous permission of the court;

¶17

(iv) that 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

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 applicant.

¶21

10. It is made clear that observations made herein 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.

¶22

Order Date :- 9.2.2023 #Vikram/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suraj Bhan v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Bhan 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

Jitendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anothers

Mahir and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Savitri Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shailendri Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kishori Lal Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Hakeem Azad Jarrah Alias Azad Vs State of U.P.