Allowed

Pushpendra and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2024ABAIL/10584/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application, this court allowed the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the applicant facing charges of forgery and cheating. The court found merit in arguments regarding delay in FIR lodging and the innocence of the applicant, granting bail on personal and two sureties without delving into the case's specific merits.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till the conclusion of trial on personal bond with two sureties and specific conditions regarding non-interference and attendance.

Pushpendra and Another vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176635

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10584 of 2024 Applicant :- Pushpendra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Matter is taken up in the revised call.

¶6

By means of this anticipatory bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 579 of 2016 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Sasni Kotwali, District-Hathras.

¶7

The bail application of the applicants was rejected by the learned trial court on 11.03.2022.

¶8

The following arguments made by Shri Pramod Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Shrawan Kumar Dubey, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail:

¶9

Delay in lodgement of the F.I.R. in the facts and circumstances of this case is fatal to the prosecution case.

¶10

The applicants did not induce the informant to part with money with the promise of a government job. The

¶11

applicants are not in a position to get anyone employed.

¶12

The applicants are not a beneficiary of any illicit transaction.

¶13

The applicants were falsely implicated in the instant case only to blackmail and to extort money from them.

¶14

In case the F.I.R. is taken on its face value, the informant had actually conspired to bribe a public servant. [Ref: Smt. Gopa Chakravarthy Vs. State of U.P. reported at 2012 (76) ACC 83 ].

¶15

The applicant claims congruency in role and seeks parity in relief granted to the co-accused who has been enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 10.10.2022 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 9468 of 2022.

¶16

The applicants undertake that they shall not abscond and will cooperate in the investigations. The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶17

The applicants do not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶18

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶19

In the light of the preceding discussion and without

¶20

making any observations on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶21

Let the applicants- Pushpendra and Pushpendra Kumar is granted anticipatory bail till the conclusion of the trial in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶22

(i) The applicants shall attend the Court proceedings as and when required.

¶23

(ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise or to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.

¶25

It is further directed that in case the applicants do not cooperate in the investigations, trial proceedings or adopts dilatory tactics, the learned trial court shall record a finding to this effect and cancel the bail without recourse to this Court.

¶26

Order Date :- 11.11.2024 Dhananjai

¶27

Digitally signed by :- DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pushpendra and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpendra and Another v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Amarnath Saini and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ramesh Kumar vs State of Up and 3 Others

Shalini Kapoor vs Harishchandra Vishwakarma and 3 Others

Dashrath @ Dashrath Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and 3 Others

Krishna Bihari Dixit vs State of Up and 5 Others

Udayveer Singh vs State of Up and 5 Others