Allowed

Sunil Kumar @ Pintoo v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 May 2023ABAIL/791/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Sunil Kumar under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant faced charges under the Indian Medical Council Act and IPC for allegedly running an illegal allopathic clinic. Granting bail was based on the Supreme Court precedent in Sushila Aggarwal.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to personal bond with sureties and conditions regarding appearance, non-interference, and travel.

Sunil Kumar @ Pintoo Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:121079

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 791 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sunil Kumar @ Pintoo Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 221 of 2017, under Sections 15(3) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and Section 420 of IPC, Police Station Maudarwaja, District Farrukhabad, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant was found involved in illegally running clinic of Allopathy in the year 2017. A notice was sent to him dated 27/29.04.2017 and when no proper response was given by the applicant, the present FIR has been instituted against him.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has apprehension of his arrest. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant is a bonafide dental medical practitioner and has been falsely implicated owing to local professional rivalry.

¶11

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. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶12

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶13

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶14

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶15

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Sunil Kumar @ Pintoo involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶16

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

¶17

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;

¶18

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

¶19

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; 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

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶23

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶24

Order Date :- 30.5.2023 Siddhant

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunil Kumar @ Pintoo v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar @ Pintoo 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

Sushil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Veer Singh Chauhan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Parvez Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Ramkumar Vs State of U.P.

Abhimanyu@ Abhimanyu Rai Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Sundar Vs State of U.P. and Another