Allowed

Babloo Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2023ABAIL/3053/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Babloo Kumar in a criminal complaint involving cheating and criminal intimidation. The court observed that the applicant is a bona fide property purchaser falsely implicated to harass him and released him on bond with specific conditions under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Babloo Kumar was enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each, subject to seven specific conditions of conduct and attendance.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:148188

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3053 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Babloo Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Kumar Mishra,Deelip Kumar Pathak

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Shashi Kant, Advocate holding brief of Sri Deelip Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶8

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.0273 of 2021, under Sections 420, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.Bhojpur, District- Moradabad, during the pendency of investigation.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that despite order of this Court, till date, no counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party no.2 as well as by learned A.G.A..

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant is bona file purchaser of the property in dispute and he has paid the consideration amount of the said property. He submitted that there is a civil suit pending between the parties in respect of the property in dispute and the present case has been given criminal colour just to harass the applicant. He submitted that this Court vide order dated 28.03.2023 has granted interim protection to the applicant. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 38 of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. He has submitted that in view of the

¶12

seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, she is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶13

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, the applicant is bona fide purchaser of the property in dispute and he has paid the consideration amount of the said property, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶14

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Babloo Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.

¶16

(ii) 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.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶20

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶21

(vii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶22

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶23

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of.

¶24

Order Date :- 25.7.2023 Krishna*

¶25

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Babloo Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babloo Kumar 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

Mahesh Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jitendra Kumar @ Jeetu Vs State of U.P.

Anurag Kumar @ Golu Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Hamja Vs State of U.P. and Another