Allowed

Manish Kumar Varma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Jul 2023ABAIL/8398/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad considered an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a cheating case. The court allowed the bail, directing the applicant to produce a personal bond and two sureties, pending the filing of the police report.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant granted anticipatory bail pending filing of police report upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties in like amounts.

Manish Kumar Varma Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:150606

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8398 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Manish Kumar Varma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Manish Kumar Varma seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.597 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 504 IPC, P.S. Dakshin, District Firozabad.

¶7

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

¶8

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. It is further submitted that no money has been deposited in the bank account of the applicant. There is no eye witness of the alleged payment of money made by the informant to the present applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. It is further submitted that the applicant has a jewellery shop and informant purchased some jewelries and some money of the applicant was due to the informant and only a part of that money has been paid by the informant. The investigation of the case is going-on and charge-sheet has not been filed. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

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

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

From the perusal of the record it reveals that Rupees Four Lakhs were taken by the present applicant alongwith co-accused

¶12

Shri Kishan from the informant on false pretext of providing some job to him in Food Corporation of India and a forged appointment letter was given to the informant but no job was provided to him and the money paid by the informant was not re-paid to him. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation started, which is still going on.

¶13

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, likelihood 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.

¶14

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.

¶15

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on 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) CrPC before the Competent Court.

¶16

10. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶17

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/-

¶18

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 protection granted to the applicant.

¶23

Order Date :- 27.7.2023

¶24

safi

¶25

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manish Kumar Varma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar Varma 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

Kripal and Another Vs State of U.P.

Bharat Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra Kumar Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Twenkale @ Umendra and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ved Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yunus and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.