Allowed

Rajkumar Srivastava v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 May 2023ABAIL/4034/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in an FIR alleging cheating and criminal breach of contract. The applicant argued the matter was civil in nature involving a dispute over construction payments. Relying on Sushila Aggarwal, the court allowed bail on a personal bond with sureties and standard conditions to prevent tampering and ensure appearance in trial.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond with two sureties and conditions to prevent tampering and ensure appearance in trial.

Rajkumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:117605

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4034 of 2023 Applicant :- Rajkumar Srivastava Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Keshav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Nitin Kesarwani, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶5

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0255 of 2022, under Sections 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Tirwa, District Kannauj, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶6

As per prosecution story, the applicant was supposed to do the job of water proofing and constructing a swimming pool in the under construction hotel of the informant for which he was given an amount of Rs. 12,82,000/-. In lieu of it, the applicant is stated to have executed the work of Rs. 60,000/- only, and therefore, is stated to have usurped the money of the informant.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has the apprehension of his arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has next stated that the matter is of civil nature. The applicant has executed the work of Rs. 21,24,000/- and he himself has been duped of his hard earned money as Rs. 13,19,000/- has been paid to him. Learned counsel has also stated that falsity of FIR is indicated from the fact that subsequent to the lodging of the FIR, two transactions have been made by the informant and he transferred Rs. 2 lacs each on 1.8.2022 and 31.8.2022, which has been filed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit filed with the application.

¶8

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made 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 next stated that charge sheet has been filed. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with

¶9

trial.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶11

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶12

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Rajkumar Srivastava involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶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; v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶18

vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶20

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 based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶21

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶22

Order Date :- 26.5.2023\Shalini

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajkumar Srivastava v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar Srivastava 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uday Bahadur Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashutosh Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Harikesh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Paramveer Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Lakshmi Singh Vs State of U.P.

Durgesh Tiwari Vs State of U.P. . and Another