Allowed

Suresh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Dept. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC15 May 2024ABAIL/1013/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving allegations of cheating, forgery, and assault. The court made the interim order absolute after finding that the allegations lacked serious prima facie met out, directing the applicant to remain available for interrogation and abide by specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Interim order made absolute; applicant shall not be arrested until the next date of listing.

Suresh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Dept… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:67350

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1013 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Suresh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Dept. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Narendra Bahadur Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1. The applicant has moved the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No.606 of 2019, under Sections 392, 323, 406, 420 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Bikapur, District Faizabad/ Ayodhya.

¶7

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State who has opposed the bail. None appears for respondent No.2.

¶8

3. This Court while giving interim protection has passed the following order on 15.5.2024 :

¶9

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶10

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No.606 of 2019, under Sections 392, 323, 406, 420 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Bikapur, District Faizabad/ Ayodhya.

¶11

In terms of the complaint case, it was alleged that a promise was made to transfer a land in favour of the complainant and substantial amounts were also paid as disclosed in the complaint. It was also stated that some amounts were returned on 03.05.2018. It was also stated that on 01.01.2019, the complainant was beaten up and Rs.5,600/- was snatched. The complaint was filed on 10.01.2019.

¶12

The Counsel for the applicant argues that the amounts, which were taken for the execution of the sale deed, has already been returned back as is evident from the statement of account as provided.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail prayer.

¶14

Considering the gravity of the allegations, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶15

Let notices be issued to opposite party no.2.

¶16

Considering the aforesaid facts, it would be appropriate to grant interim order in favour of the applicant. Thus, it is directed that the applicant Brijesh Yadav shall not be arrested till the next date of listing in pursuance of the FIR in

¶17

question, subject to the following condition:

¶18

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

¶19

(ii) That 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 and

¶20

(iii) That the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶21

4. Considering the statement made on behalf of the applicant in para 4 of the order, above extracted, interim order is liable to be and is hereby made absolute.

¶22

5. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶23

Order Date :- 27.9.2024 kkb/

¶24

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Suresh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Dept. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Dept. Civil Sectt. Lko. 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

Kapura Devi @ Kapuri Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Javed Khan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Amit Kumar Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Durgesh Agnihotri vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Ajay Pratap Singh @ Dablu @ Dileep vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Afzal Ahmad and Others vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Sectt. Govt. Lko. and Another