Allowed

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

Allahabad HC15 May 2023ABAIL/4063/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Saroj Kumar in a cheating case. The applicant was released on bail subject to furnishing sureties and complying with specific conditions including participating in investigation, not tampering with evidence, and appearing in court.

What did the court decide?

Extends anticipatory bail to the applicant in the case Crime No.373 of 2021 subject to furnishing two sureties and adhering to specified conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:104180

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4063 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Saroj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶9

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.373 of 2021, registered under Sections 419, 420, 406, 323, 506 IPC at Police Station- Saini, District Kaushambi with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶10

As per prosecution story, the informant is stated to have sold a land to the co-accused person Sangeeta Devi through a registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs.2.5 lakhs while its actual cost was Rs.68,20,000/- as per the circle rate.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is only marginal witnesses to the said sale deed. He has nothing to do with the said offence. 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. The criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶14

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Saroj Kumar be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

(i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶16

(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;

¶17

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶18

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶23

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 15.5.2023 Ravi Kant

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj 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

Asad @ Mohd. Arshad Alam Vs State of U.P and 2 Others

Dileep Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Minakshi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Akbar Shah Khan Vs State of U.P and Another

Shailesh Upadhyay Vs State of U.P.

Pritam Vs State of U.P.