Allowed

Jwala Prasad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2023BAIL/57849/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court considered an application for anticipatory bail under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120(B) of the IPC. The applicant alleged false implication due to a delayed FIR and ulterior motives. The Court allowed the bail application relying on Supreme Court precedent, imposing standard conditions including personal bond and appearance before the court.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and complying with standard conditions.

Jwala Prasad Vs State of U.P. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:192024

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57849 of 2019

¶4

Applicant :- Jwala Prasad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Singh,Indrakesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised. Rejoinder affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Indrakesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, 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. 0310 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120(B) of IPC, Police Station Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have taken a loan from the company of the informant by depositing fake gold ornaments as security.

¶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 FIR is delayed by two years and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The said ornaments have been deposited after due verification. The applicant has not committed any fraud with the company. On an enquiry instituted against the Branch Manager, he has been found guilty.

¶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 history. 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

¶14

is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶15

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 .

¶16

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Jwala Prasad 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:-

¶17

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

¶18

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;

¶19

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

¶20

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; 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 :- 4.10.2023 Siddhant

¶25

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

Jwala Prasad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jwala Prasad 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailash Vs State of U.P.

Kallu Mansoori and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bheem Vs State of U.P.

Manish Vs State of U.P.

Anand Kumar @ Anand Kumar Gaud Vs State of U.P. through Its Secretory and 5 Others

Jyoti Gupta Vs State of U.P.