Allowed

Ramesh Kumar Pal and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2023ABAIL/6852/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application filed against three applicants in a cheating and forgery case. The Court held that the applicants, who were similarly situated to co-accused already granted bail, were entitled to release. A bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each was required along with standard bail conditions to prevent evidence tampering and intimidation.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicants on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in like amount.

Ramesh Kumar Pal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6852 of 2021 Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Pal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Birendra Singh,Hari Kant Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vikas Sahai

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶3

The case is taken up in the revised call.

¶4

Heard Mr.Birendra Singh , learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶5

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.532 of 2015, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station-Cantt., District-Varanasi, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶6

Earlier on 05.04.2021, the following order was passed, granting interim protection to the applicants:-

¶7

"Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh Advocate holding brief of Mr. Birendra Singh, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶8

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicants in connection with Case Crime No. 532 of 2015, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Cantt. District Varanasi.

¶9

Perusal of record shows that an F.I.R. dated 9.9.2015 was lodged by first informant Dr. Pradeep Kumar and was registered as Case Crime No. 532 of 2015, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Cantt. District Varanasi. In the aforesaid F.I.R. as many as 150 persons have been nominated as named accused. Learned counsel for applicant contends that named accused Divya Prakash Tiwari, Brahma Nand Pathak Sanju Yadav, Mamta Shukla, Shailendra Kumar Yadav and Praveen Kumar Shukla, Manju Devi, Sharmila Yadav, Ashok Kumar, Swadesh Mishra, Ajay Dubey, Nursingh yadav, Savita Yadav, Smt. Maha Laxmi Yadav, Ram Krishna Yadav, Garima, Suneeta Yadav , Vivesh Kumar Yadav, Rajendra Prasad Yadav and Kalp Nath Yadav have been extended benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court. Their bail orders are on record as Annexure-2 to the affidavit. Learned counsel for applicant contends that case of present applicants is identical and similar to that of above mentioned co-accused. Consequently, present applicants are also entitled for benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G. has opposed the application.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of material brought on record, matter requires consideration.

¶12

Notice on behalf of opposite party-1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A. He prays for and is granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit. Applicants will have one week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶13

Until further orders, applicants shall not be arrested in above mentioned case crime number, subject to cooperation with investigation.

¶14

Considering the fact that F.I.R. was lodged on 9.9.2015, and a period of more than 5 years and six months have rolled by but charge-sheet has not been submitted. Let Commissioner of Police, Varansi appear before this Court on 13.4.2021 to explain as to under what circumstances, Police report as provided under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. could not be submitted, even after a period of more than five years and six months.

¶15

Put up as fresh on 13.4.2021 before appropriate Bench.

¶16

The matter shall not be treated as tied up or part heard to this Bench."

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He further submits that the applicant has always cooperated in the investigation and has not misused the liberty as granted vide order 05.04.2021 passed by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court. He further submits that the similarly situated coaccused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail. One of the co-accused, namely, Mr. Divya Prakash Tiwari has already been granted vide order dated 17.12.2020 passed in Cri. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.9508 of 2020. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegation made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon length. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant/opposite party no.2 has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but does not dispute the factual aspects of the matter.

¶19

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case in view of the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC

¶20

1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgement of the Apex Court.

¶21

In view of above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶22

Let the applicant- Ramesh Kumar Pal, Mohd. Harun and Suresh Chandra involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶23

The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶24

The applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶25

The applicants shall appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶26

The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶27

That the applicants 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;

¶28

The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him/her/them in accordance with law.

¶29

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicants in accordance with law.

¶30

Order Date :- 18.1.2023 Jitendra/-

¶31

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

Ramesh Kumar Pal and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar Pal and 2 Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ikrar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandra Shekhar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anuj Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Singh and 16 Others Vs State of U.P.

Tahsin Begum and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Yadav and Anr. Vs State of U.P.