Partly allowed

Ghanshyam Alias Ghanshyam Chauhan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2024ABAIL/10055/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. during the pendency of the hearing, subject to personal bond and standard conditions including appearance before interrogation and witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail granted pending final hearing, conditional upon personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and compliance with standard conditions.

Ghanshyam Alias Ghanshyam Chauhan vs State of U.P. and… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10055 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Ghanshyam Alias Ghanshyam Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Prabodh Dubey,Ashok Kumar Giri Counsel for Opposite Party :- Satya Priya Mishra,G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Arvind Prabodh Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satya Priya Mishra, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant in Criminal Case No.8691 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No.289 of 2023, under Sections-419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C, Police StationKotwali Hata, District-Kushinagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Applicant is a marginal witness in the sale deed and having no concern with the alleged incident. Co-accused, Ramrati and Sonam, have been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon'ble Court and applicant's case is similar to the co-accused, hence applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of same footing. Applicant is co-operating in the investigation proceedings. Story narrated in the FIR is not supported by any evidence, whole prosecution story is malicious prosecution. There is no evidence to prosecute the applicant in the present case. In case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would co-operate with the investigation. Applicant has definite apprehension of his arrest by the police.

¶8

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant with the contention that the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail as prima facie case is made out.

¶9

Learned counsel for the informant granted four week's time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶10

List this case after six weeks.

¶11

As an interim protection, till the next date of listing fixed for hearing on this application, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;

¶13

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

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if applicant has passport, the same shall be deposited before the S.S.P./S.P./C.P./A.C.P concerned.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(v) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(vi) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate/concerned court is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶19

Order Date :- 26.11.2024 Nitin Verma

¶20

Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ghanshyam Alias Ghanshyam Chauhan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyam Alias Ghanshyam Chauhan v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Ravi Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Netrapal and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Jasram vs State of U.P. and Another

Nipul Kashyap vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabhkant @ Saurav Kant @ Krishna vs State of Up

Vikas Kumar Jaiswal and Another vs State of U.P.