Allowed

Rohit Kashyap v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2023ABAIL/6573/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed anticipatory bail to Rohit Kashyap in a cheating case until the filing of police report. Court relied on Supreme Court precedents regarding discretionary nature of bail and cited lack of incriminating evidence against applicant at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; bail granted subject to personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties with specific conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:143828

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6573 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rohit Kashyap Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Maurya,Maneesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit with regard to added sections was filed today which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶8

Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Rohit Kashyap in Case Crime No.1036 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406 IPC, Police Station - Sadar Bazar, District - Shahjahanpur.

¶9

It is alleged in the F.I.R. that in a cyber crime case where a huge amount from the informant was grabbed by the named accused persons and some other unknown accused persons by fraud and F.I.R. under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C. was lodged on 07.11.2022 and during the course of investigation, Sections 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. were also added into the matter.

¶10

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

It is submitted by learned counsel for the accused applicant that the accused applicant is not named in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that his name was found for the first time in the statement of co-accused, Subham Adhikari, who was held by the police. It is next submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered from the place in possession of or under the control of

¶12

present applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant has no concern with the alleged bank accounts, which are mentioned in the F.I.R., wherein the amount is said to be deposited by the informant on different dates. It is next submitted that accused applicant has been cooperative with the investigation of the case during the course of investigation and accused applicant has no criminal history to his credit.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer. However, he fairly admits that at this stage, except the statement of co-accused, Subham Adhikari, there is no other evidence against the present applicant and investigation of the case is going on.

¶14

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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.

¶15

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶16

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 filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in the matter.

¶17

The application is allowed .

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶19

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

¶20

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 19.7.2023 Shivangi

¶24

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

Rohit Kashyap v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Kashyap 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

Ritu Patel Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Umashankar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Piyush Verma Vs State of U.P.

Jaswant Singh Vs State of U.P.

Harchand Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Taki Vs State of U.P. and Another