Allowed

Ashutosh Bajpai v. State of Up

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2024ABAIL/11454/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC in Shahjahanpur was granted on the ground of parity with a co-accused already enlarged on anticipatory bail, with no criminal history disputed by the State.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial upon furnishing personal bond with two sureties, with standard conditions.

Ashutosh Bajpai vs State of Up — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:186013

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11454 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ashutosh Bajpai Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pawankumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Pawankumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case No. 2399 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 560 of 2018, under Sections 406 & 420 of IPC, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Shahjahanpur, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has claimed parity with the co-accused Anand Kumar Pandey, who has already been granted anticipatory bail by another Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 610 of 2023 vide order dated 01.02.2023. Since the case of the applicant is at par with the co-accused who has already been granted anticipatory bail, the applicant is also entitled for the same on the ground of parity. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶10

The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned AGA. However, the aforesaid factual aspects of the parity to the co-accused and also the fact of no criminal history assigned to the applicant, have not been disputed by him.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, evidence on record, pending trial and in the light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in

¶12

Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 coupled with the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 , without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Ashutosh Bajpai, involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶14

i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

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 or tamper with the evidence; iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶16

iv. that in case, the charge-sheet is submitted, the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶17

v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶18

vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶20

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶21

Order Date:- 27.11.2024 Siddhant

¶22

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashutosh Bajpai v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashutosh Bajpai v. State of Up

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

Ayyub vs State of Up

Raj Kumar vs State of Up and 3 Others

Radhika Devi vs State of Up

Devi Dayal Singh vs State of Up and Another

Ashish Mishra vs State of U.P.

Loknath vs State of U.P.