Holding that a compromise between parties negates the need for custodial interrogation and mere suspicion of cheating allows granting anticipatory bail effectively until the conclusion of trial.
Application allowed; applicant to be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:193218
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9415 of 2023
Applicant :- Vishan Swaroop Maheshwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
place between all the stake holders and the impugned sale deed was also got cancelled in terms of the said compromise. It is further submitted that the compromise was allowed by the competent court at Amroha vide order dated 13.12.2021 and as such, there is no dispute now between the parties. It is further submitted that earlier the present applicant was granted anticipatory bail under Section 420 I.P.C. by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.02.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1192 of 2021 but subsequently, some sections were added but the said liberty was never misused by the present applicant.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(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.
(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.
Order Date :- 5.10.2023 Shivangi
Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present case is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail before the court.
Whether anticipatory bail can continue till the conclusion of trial after filing of charge sheet.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and anotherRelied on¶14
(2020) 5 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vishan Swaroop Maheshwari
State Of U.P.
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
