Allowed

Ratan Manglani v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Aug 2023ABAIL/3546/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Ratan Manglani in a case involving allegations of forgery and cheating under various provisions of the IPC, granting bail subject to specific conditions including cooperation with investigation and a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties.

Ratan Manglani Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:162238

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3546 of 2023 Applicant :- Ratan Manglani Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Kesarwani,Devendra Kumar Mishra,Ravi Kant Verma,Sarveshwari Prasad

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Devendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 459 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B of IPC, Police Station Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have entered into an agreement to sell for the property of Arazi No.564 without any title for an area of 0.809 hectare on the basis of a forged will deed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has apprehension of his arrest. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has further stated that the said Arazi No.564(2) was inherited by the applicant from his grandfather and is a bonafide person. The informant has vaguely mentioned the Arazi No.564 although she is the owner of Arazi No.564(3) only. Learned counsel has placed much reliance upon Annexure-11 of the affidavit whereby it is categorically mentioned that in the south, it was the property of one Chaubey Ji which refers to the informant. As per Anneuxre-3 of the affidavit also, the applicant holds the title of Arazi No.564(2) only and, as such, has acted in a bonafide manner. Investigation is going on and he is ready to cooperate in it.

¶9

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made

¶10

against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶11

On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the applicant has forged the documents and investigation is still going on.

¶12

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant deserves to be granted anticipatory bail in connection with the aforesaid case.

¶13

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following directions:-

¶14

(A) In the event of arrest of the applicant involved in aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his/her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned;

¶15

(B) 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

(C) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

¶17

(D) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶18

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.

¶19

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶20

Order Date :- 10.8.2023 Siddhant

¶21

Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN PAHAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ratan Manglani v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratan Manglani 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Faiyyaz Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Jafar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Jyoti Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ankur Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogendra Singh @ Bade Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tej Singh Parihar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others