Allowed

Neel Kamal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2024/915/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed anticipatory bail application for an accused in an investment-cheating case where he was not taken into custody and released on bond under Section 41-A. Bail granted on furnishing personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail on condition of executing personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; accused must appear on trial dates and not interfere with witnesses.

Neel Kamal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:55991

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 915 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Neel Kamal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanat Singh,Sudhir Kumar,Suhail Kashif

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶8

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 51 of 2023 under Sections 419, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Mahmoodabad, District- Sitapur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was falsely implicated in the present case as the applicant was employee in the company in question. He further submits that as per the prosecution case, the money was invested in the company, but there is no specific allegation that the applicant was cheating the informant of the present case. He next submits that the applicant was not taken into custody during the course of investigation and as all the alleged offenses were punishable upto seven years, bond was taken from the applicant in accordance with provisions of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. He also submits that the applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the cases of Sushila Aggarwal And Other Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) And Another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1 and Siddarth vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615 and submits that the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that after detailed investigation, charge-sheet has

¶12

already been submitted. However, he does not dispute the fact that the applicant was not taken into custody during the course of investigation and the alleged offenses are punishable upto 7 years.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the anticipatory bail application, F.I.R., charge-sheet as well as other relevant documents; it is evident that the applicant was not taken into custody during the course of investigation and he was released after taking bond under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. In such circumstances, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶14

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶15

In case the applicant is taken into custody by Investigating Officer/Investigating Agency, then he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail after taking personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount with the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶17

(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 such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

Order Date :- 13.8.2024 Arpan

¶20

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

Neel Kamal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neel Kamal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gopal Ji Vs Dr. Rajnish Dube, Chairman, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lko.

Ram Saran Vs Mr. Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma Sub Divisional Magistrate, Distt. Barabanki and Another

Prem Chandra Soni Vs Shri M.Dev Raj, Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education, Govt. Lko and Others

Durgesh Chandra Srivastav vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Min. of Energy, Lucknow and 6 Others

Rajesh Kumar Dubey and Others vs Sri Sardar Singh, District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh

Pawan Kumar vs Parmanand and Others