Allowed

Rajnath v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2024/93/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, allowed the prayer. The court considered the applicant's lack of criminal history and his readiness to refund the alleged cheated amount as grounds for granting bail, referencing key Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed; respondent to produce himself before police or trial court within 20 days on furnishing bond and sureties, and pay Rs. 23,000 within two months.

Rajnath Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:5842

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 93 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rajnath Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- J.B. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned AGA informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including up-to-date case diary and the charge sheet in this case has already been submitted.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant application has been moved by the applicant- Rajnath, in Case Crime No. 279 of 2023, under Sections 420 I.P.C. and Sections 66-D, 67 I.T. Act, Police Station- Jaidpur, District- Barabanki, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending arrest in the abovementioned case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. He has not committed fraud as claimed by the informant.

¶10

It is further submitted that except the statement of the informant, there is no other evidence, which may connect the applicant with the crime however, applicant without admitting his guilt is ready to pay Rs.23,000/- to the informant/ victim. However, for the said purpose, some reasonable time be granted to him.

¶11

It is next submitted that the applicant is not having any criminal history. Charge sheet has already been submitted and there is no apprehension that after being released on anticipatory bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶12

Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, opposes the prayer of anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶13

Having regard to all the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the facts that the applicant is not having any criminal history and he is ready to pay back the amount, which is allegedly taken by deceiving the informant and having regard to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors., MANU/SC/1021/2010, Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors., MANU/SC/0100/2020 and Nathu Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others:(2021) 6 SCC 64 , in the considered opinion of this Court, the facility of anticipatory bail may be granted to the applicant.

¶14

Thus, the instant anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant- Rajnath is, hereby, allowed and it is provided that in the event of arrest of the applicant- Rajnath, in the abovementioned case under any coercive process of the trial court or on his appearance/surrender before the trial court within 20 days, whichever is earlier, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/ Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The applicant within two months from today i.e. till 23.03.2024 shall pay Rs.23,000/-, as promised by his counsel, to the informant/ victim and the violation of this condition alone would be a sufficient ground for the trial Court to cancel the facility of anticipatory bail granted by this Court.

¶16

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

¶17

(iii) 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;

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall not leave the country concerned without the previous permission of the Court.

¶19

Applicant shall remain present before the trial court as and when his presence would be required and he would not take adjournment especially when the prosecution witnesses would be in attendance.

¶20

If in the opinion of the trial court default of any of the condition placed above is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as

¶21

abuse of liberty of his bail and shall proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 19.1.2024 Gurpreet Singh

¶24

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

Rajnath v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajnath v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Smt. Seema Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Bajrang Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Neelam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. and Another

Kavita Chaudharya Alias Kavita Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and Another

Smt. Mithlesh Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Atul Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.