Avanish Kumar Trivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

Avanish Kumar Trivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted: in the event of arrest, the applicant to be released on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O./court concerned, subject to conditions of cooperation in investigation, no influencing of witnesses, reporting to the police station within twenty days, presence as and when called, and no departure from India without previous permission of the Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Avanish Kumar Trivedi is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 55 of 2024 under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sitapur.

Court's answer

The anticipatory bail application is allowed; in the event of arrest the applicant Avanish Kumar Trivedi shall be released on anticipatory bail in FIR No. 55 of 2024 on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O./court concerned.

Ratio / Principle

Bail protection was considered expedient in the interest of justice in view of the applicant having no criminal antecedents, the offences being triable by Magistrate, and the restatement of the complainant, following the dictum of the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi).

Key takeaways

The anticipatory bail is subject to conditions: the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and not influence witnesses; shall report to the concerned police station/investigating officer within twenty days and remain present as and when called for investigation/interrogation; shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court; and in case of default the investigating agency may move for vacation of the interim protection.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. granted to an applicant who was neither named in the FIR nor in the complainant's first Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, his name appearing for the first time in the complainant's restatement given after one month; the Court noted the absence of criminal antecedents and that the offences (Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC) are triable by Magistrate, and, following the dictum in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC OnLine SC 98, directed release in the event of arrest on a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions of cooperation in investigation, reporting to the police station/investigating officer within twenty days, presence as and when called, no influencing of witnesses, and no leaving India without previous permission of the Court, failing which the investigating agency may seek vacation of the interim protection.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45153

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1323 of 2024

Applicant :- Avanish Kumar Trivedi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Desh Ratan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

Counter Affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A for the respondent State as well as perused the record.

The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.55 of 2024 under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sitapur.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is neither named in the FIR nor in the first statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. While giving restatement after one month for the first time name of the applicant has been taken by the complainant. The allegation upon the applicant is of impersonating Prakash Mishra, however, the investigating officer has not conducted any investigation with regard to the named accused persons. Neither the witnesses of the sale deed have been chargesheeted. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.

Learned Addl. Government Advocate though has opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

On due consideration of the arguments advanced; perusal of the record; restatement of the complainant; so also the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, offences are triable by

Magistrate, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the liberty of the applicant may be protected in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

Therefore, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. It is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant Avanish Kumar Trivedi shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid F.I.R./case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O./court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses.

(ii) The accused-applicant shall report to the concerned police station/investigating officer within twenty days from today and will remain present as and when the arresting officer /I.O./ S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation.

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

(iv) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

Order Date :- 3.7.2024 Madhu

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench