Allowed

Achyuta Nand Pandey v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2023ABAIL/9122/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Achyuta Nand Pandey. The case involves allegations of cheating and forgery related to a property dispute where a sale deed was allegedly forged by a co-owner. The court held it was a fit case to grant bail till the conclusion of the trial.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial, subject to personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and standard conditions.

Achyuta Nand Pandey Vs State of U.P.and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:168833

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9122 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Achyuta Nand Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Nath Tripathi,Anushriya Tripathi,Rakesh Nath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anjali Singh Tomer,Gaurav Singh Tomar,Harish Kumar Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

None present for the informant even when the case is called in revised list. However, Learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State are present and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Achyuta Nand Pandey in connection with Case Crime No. 0731 of 2021, under sections 419, 420, 467, 471 IPC, P.S. Cantt, District Gorakhpur.

¶8

It was alleged that Mithai and Vanshu, the two real brothers, having equal share in the property were willing to execute a sale deed in favour of the present applicant and Vanshu sold half of his share in favour of the applicant but no share was sold by Mithai in favour of the present applicant. However, sale deed was executed allegedly by Mithai in favour of the applicant on the basis of a forged document and mutation was obtained by the applicant but subsequently, the said mutation in favour of the applicant was cancelled. F.I.R. was lodged on 18.11.2021 and investigation started, which has been culminated into charge sheet.

¶9

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. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

It is further submitted that as a matter of fact, Mithai also

¶11

executed a sale deed in favour of the present applicant in respect of his share in the property in question and no civil suit for cancellation of the same has been filed by Mithai against the applicant. It is further submitted that although the mutation order passed in favour of the present applicant has been cancelled but the same was not used in evidence before any court. It is next submitted that the dispute relates to purely of civil nature and the applicant has been cooperative during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that after filing of the charge sheet, now no custodial interrogation is required and as such, the accused applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. However, he has fairly admitted that civil suit is pending in respect of the alleged sale deed executed in favour of the applicant and it has been vehemently submitted in the revenue proceedings, it has been found that no execution of sale deed in favour of the applicant was existing.

¶13

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶14

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶15

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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.

¶16

Hence, 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 conclusion of trial in the matter.

¶17

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, 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 the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶19

(i) 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.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

¶24

Order Date :- 21.8.2023 Shivangi

¶25

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

Achyuta Nand Pandey v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Achyuta Nand Pandey 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

Girjesh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ranvijay Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Akash Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Dilshad Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Anand @ Aanshu Vs State of U.P.