Allowed

Deepak Chahar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2023ABAIL/3438/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an alleged forgery case, the Allahabad High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for two applicants, directing release on personal bond and security with conditions regarding

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicants released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and complying with specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3438 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Deepak Chahar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicants- Deepak Chahar and Devendra Chahar in connection with Case Crime No. 232 of 2020 under sections 323, 420, 467, 468, 471, 188 I.P.C., P.S.- Shahganj, District- Agra.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled in the matter are general in nature. It is further submitted that charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter. Applicants' case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. If the applicants are enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty and will cooperate with the investigation. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest by the police any time.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer.

¶9

It appears from perusal of the record that during corona period five persons were permitted to travel in a vehicle but the accused applicants by way of some forgery altered as six persons and transit pass was accordingly received. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted. criminal history of the applicants is explained in the affidavit.

¶10

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶11

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue

¶12

after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶13

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶14

Hence, 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 of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of trial in the matter.

¶15

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶16

In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶17

The applicants 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

The applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶20

The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicants in accordance with law.

¶22

Order Date :- 12.4.2023 Fhd

¶23

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Deepak Chahar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Chahar and Another 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

Deepak Rawat Vs State of U.P. and Another

Guddu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Bharadwaj Vs State of U.P.

Shyambir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sant Prakash Goel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prashant and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another