Allowed

Arvind Kumar Pal and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2024ABAIL/11526/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to applicants accused of forgery in a cheating case. Considering parity with a co-accused, the court ordered release on personal bond with conditions, referring to the Sushila Aggarwal judgment without expressing a final opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicants enlarged on anticipatory bail in a personal bond with two sureties each, subject to specific conditions including passport custody and presence at trial court.

Arvind Kumar Pal and Another vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:194288

¶2

Court No. - 48

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11526 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Pal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yatharth Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Arvind Kumar Pal and Renu Pal, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 475 of 2016, under Sections- 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali City, District- Mirzapur, during pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution case, allegation is that applicants obtained appointment on the post of teacher on forged and manufactured document. It is urged that applicants are innocent; appointment letter was issued by the competent authority after verifying the document. It is further submitted that till date no enquiry has been initiated by the University declaring that the educational certificate of the applicants is forged; applicants have no other reported criminal antecedent; applicants undertake that if enlarged on bail, they will never misuse their liberty and will co-operate in the investigation.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the coaccused Vinayak Saini has been granted bail by this Court on 20.11.2020 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 8078 of 2020. The case of the applicant stands on identical footing, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity for the reasons given in bail application of co-accused.

¶10

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants, but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶11

Hence the applicants are directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in

¶12

the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and order dated 22.05.2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.2609 of 2020. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶13

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and his antecedents, the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶14

Let the applicants involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

The applicants shall not leave India during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶16

The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.

¶17

That the applicants 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;

¶18

The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicants.

¶19

In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail, the trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶20

The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the

¶21

trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶22

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶23

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶24

Order Date :- 11.12.2024 Rmk.

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arvind Kumar Pal and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar Pal 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

Rvd vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh vs State of U.P. and Another

X Juvenile vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Maya and 2 Others vs State of U.P.

Sitaram Yadav and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Pratap Singh Rana vs State of U.P. and Another