Allowed

Manorama Devi Thru. Her Husband Chandra Pratap Patel v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2024/290/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Manorama Devi in a case under Sections 419 and 420 IPC regarding alleged impersonation in an examination. The court allowed bail noting the FIR was based on suspicion as the alleged impersonator was unidentified and the applicant has no prior history.

What did the court decide?

Allowed with direction to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions regarding interrogation, influence, and district travel.

Manorama Devi Thru. Her Husband Chandra Pratap Patel Vs… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:14038

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 290 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Manorama Devi Thru. Her Husband Chandra Pratap Patel

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And 3 Others

¶6

Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter, including upto date case diary, and investigation of this case is still going on.

¶10

This application has been moved by the applicant- Manorama Devi for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.0507 of 2023, under Sections 419 and 420 IPC read with Sections 3 and 9 of the U.P. Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998, lodged at Police Station Madiyaon, district Lucknow.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. The FIR of this case has been lodged by principal of the centre wherein a competitive examination was going on and the allegations are to the tune that a candidate who was claiming herself to be Manorama Devi (applicant), her aadhar card was not matched with the record made available to the school (centre).

¶12

Elaborating above, it is vehemently submitted that the FIR has been lodged only on the basis of apprehension and suspicion. Even the person, who, according to the FIR, was present at the examination centre has not been identified nor her name has been disclosed in the FIR which renders the whole prosecution story highly improbable, concocted and false. It is vehemently submitted that apart from apprehension and suspicion, there is no other material/evidence so far as the applicant is concerned on the basis of which the charge-sheet could be submitted against the applicant. The applicant is a lady and she is ready to cooperate in the investigation and would remain present before the investigating officer as and when her presence would be required. The applicant is not having any criminal history to her credit and there is no apprehension that after being released on

¶13

anticipatory bail, she may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶14

Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, submits that the applicant has committed a heinous offence and, therefore, she is not entitled for any protection.

¶15

Keeping in view the fact that the applicant has not been arrested/apprehended from the examination centre, the name of the person who was allegedly appearing, impersonating the applicant at the examination centre, has also not been disclosed in the FIR, the allegations are only pertaining to mismatching of the aadhar card and photograph of the applicant and the applicant is a lady, the facility of anticipatory bail may safely be extended in her favour.

¶16

In result, the instant anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed with a direction that in the event of arrest of the applicant- Manorama Devi , under any process of the trial Court, she shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall make herself available for interrogation or for discovery of any fact by a police officer as and when required;

¶18

(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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶19

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

¶20

It is clarified that all the observations contained in this order are only for disposal of this anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial proceedings in any manner.

¶21

In case of submission of any adverse police report, the trial court may impose any other suitable condition on the applicant, in addition to the above conditions.

¶22

Order Date :- 16.2.2024

¶23

MVS/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manorama Devi Thru. Her Husband Chandra Pratap Patel v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manorama Devi Thru. Her Husband Chandra Pratap Patel v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rohit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Vijay Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. a.C.S/Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Kuldeep Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Gajraj Kunwar Jain vs Govt. of India Thru. Assistant Director , Directorate of Enforcement Allahabad

Mohit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt. Gunjan Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow