Allowed

Rajesh Kumar Mangal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2023ABAIL/7360/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., granted anticipatory bail to applicants allegedly implicated in a cheating and damage to public property case. The grant was directed based on the Supreme Court judgment in Sushila Aggarwal, subject to specific conditions including cooperation with investigation, no inducement of witnesses, and surrender of passport.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each, subject to standard conditions and Sushila Aggarwal guidelines.

Rajesh Kumar Mangal and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:130308

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7360 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Mangal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 377 of 2022, under sections 467, 420,468 IPC and Section 3/5 of Prevention of Damages of Public Property Act, P.S. Malpura, District Agra, during the pendency of investigation.

¶8

As per FIR, a dumper truck having registration No. RJ11GB8862 is said to have been challaned for overloading under Section 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and subsequently, during course of investigation, on the ground of preparation of forged and fabricated royalty papers, sections 420, 367,468 IPC were added.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that applicants are neither owner of the truck in question nor having any concern with the alleged crime. Applicants are not named in the FIR. He next submits that co accused Shailendra, owner of the Truck in question has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 194.2023 passed in Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application No. 684 of 2023. Applicants own a valid lease issued by the Mining Department and the Government in accordance with Rules.

¶10

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said facts.

¶11

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, they are directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶12

In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants Rajesh Kumar Mangal and Raj Kumar Khandelwal involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on each of them 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:-

¶13

(1) The applicants shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;

¶14

(2) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

¶15

(3) The applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶16

(4) The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶17

(5) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicants.

¶18

(6) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila

¶19

Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶20

(7) 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 their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶21

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 3.7.2023 RavindraKSingh

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajesh Kumar Mangal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Mangal and Another 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

Gulfam @ Arman Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sudha Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakir Husain Vs State of U.P.

Pintu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nanhey Lal @ Jhanjhan Lal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shahad @ Shahadat Vs State of U.P.