Chaman Lal Diwakar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:56644

Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1653 of 2024 Applicant :- Chaman Lal Diwakar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Prakhar Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶4

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in case crime/F.I.R No. 277/2023 under Sections 420/406/386/388/34/120 IPC, P.S. Nagram, District Lucknow.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Virendra Kumar Mishra, learned Advocate who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant which is taken on record.

¶7

This Court while granting interim protection to the applicant vide order dated 26.07.2024 has passed the following order:-

¶8

"Heard learned counsel the applicant and learned A.G.A. for respondent no. 1 and 2.

¶9

The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/F.I.R No. 277/2023 under Sections 420/406/386/388/34/120 IPC, P.S. Nagram, District Lucknow.

¶10

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the informant after getting permission by the District Administrative Committee for purchase of land has failed to crack the deal. It has been further alleged that the applicant along with the co-accused persons were mediator in the said deal. It is alleged that even after making of entire payment by the informant, the execution of sale deed has not been done and therefore, the present FIR has been lodged.

¶11

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of several months. The dispute appears to be civil in nature and the applicant has not received any money. He is neither the purchaser, nor the seller of the said deal. He has been falsely implicated. The applicant has explained his criminal history of 11 cases. He is not a

¶12

previous convict.

¶13

It has been further submitted that without there being any material on record, the police is keeping adding name of the applicant in other cases.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not a previous convict; he has explained his criminal antecedents and he undertakes to cooperate in the investigation.

¶15

Issue notice to respondent No. 2.

¶16

Learned Addl. Government Advocate prays for and is allowed 15 days' time to file counter affidavit.

¶17

List on 20.08.2024.

¶18

On due consideration to the fact that the offences are triable by magistrate; the applicant is not a previous convict; investigation is going on and also considering the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, as an interim measure, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶19

Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.

¶20

The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶21

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

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the investigation.

¶23

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶24

On due consideration to the fact that offences are triable by magistrate; prima facie the dispute appears to be civil in nature; the applicant has cooperated in the investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the investigation; he is not a previous convict, the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 26.07.2024 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶25

In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid Case Crime number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O./trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶26

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

¶27

(2) The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/1.O./S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed .

¶31

Order Date :- 20.8.2024 R.C.

¶32

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chaman Lal Diwakar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaman Lal Diwakar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nankunna @ Shahid Ali and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Arvind @ Arvind Tiwari and another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and another

A (Minor) Thru. Guardian/Father B - Juvenile Delinquent vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Tapassum @ Tabassum vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Anil Kumar Alias Anil Kashyap vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Ram Chandra Verma @ Ram Chandr vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another