Allowed

Mukhaya Arakshi 308 Ompal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2023ABAIL/9987/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. converted to bail. Applicant sought bail in a forged documents case involving IPC Sections 420, 467, 468, 471. Court granted bail on ₹50,000 bond with multiple conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, subject to specific conditions including cooperation with investigation and surrender of passport.

Mukhaya Arakshi 308 Ompal Singh Vs State of U.P. and… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:182034

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9987 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mukhaya Arakshi 308 Ompal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Dutt Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Krishna Dutt Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant 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.137 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S.Milak, District- Rampur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He submitted that a complaint was raised by unknown person alleging that the applicant got service with forged educational certificates. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant got service in dying-in-harness, he has never committed any fraud, he has got service on the basis of genuine certificates. He submitted that the departmental inqury is going on and the applicant is still in service, he was never suspended and till date no charge sheet has been submitted. The FIR has been lodged after 27 years. The applicant is having no previous criminal history after lodging of the present FIR. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that

¶9

applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is 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 applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶12

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Mukhaya Arakshi 308 Ompal Singh , involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail on 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

(i) The applicant 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

(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 from disclosing

¶15

such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶16

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

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 applicant.

¶19

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses 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 Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶20

(vii) The applicant 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 his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶21

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant

¶22

is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶23

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands allowed.

¶24

Order Date :- 20.9.2023 Krishna*

¶25

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

Mukhaya Arakshi 308 Ompal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukhaya Arakshi 308 Ompal Singh 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

Satish Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipendra @ Babu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Renuka Lily Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Satpal and Another Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Shankar Pal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another