Allowed

Deena Gurjan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2023ABAIL/574/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. moved by Deena Gurjan in a case involving cheating and forgery. The Court considered the nature of accusation, lack of credible evidence, and parity with co-accused who had already been granted bail. It held that a case for anticipatory bail was made out.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on anticipatory bail with a personal bond and two sureties conditioned to make himself available for interrogation, not induce anyone, and obtain permission to leave India.

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

¶1

Court No. - 92

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 574 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Deena Gurjan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kameshwar Rao Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kameshwar Rao, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 133 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Refinery, District Mathura with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant has never produced any forged educational certificate and the allegation against the applicant is without any basis. The other co-accused Krishna Kumar and Dinesh Kumar had already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders dated 8.8.2022 and 2.11.2022 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos.5739 of 2022 and 10243 of 2022 respectively. Lastly, it is submitted that since other coaccused have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, the applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. The applicant has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. It is submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

¶9

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent

¶10

of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶11

In the instant case, considering the settled principle 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 on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶12

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant Deena Gurjan shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions :-

¶14

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

¶15

(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/her/them from disclosing such facts to any police officer;

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶17

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶18

Order Date :- 10.2.2023 Kpy

¶19

Digitally signed by :- KAVLESHWAR PRASAD YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Deena Gurjan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deena Gurjan 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

Queen of Apostles Society St.Marys Convent Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Indramani Singh Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Shashi Kapoor Gupta Vs State of U P and 9 Others

Ajay Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yudhisthir @ Bablu Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Maurya Vs State of U.P.