Allowed

Mukesh Babu Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2024ABAIL/11693/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case involving charges of cheating and forgery. The applicant, a former bank clerk, sought bail fearing arrest. The court granted bail subject to standard conditions including a personal bond and appearance before the trial court, without adjudicating the merits of the allegations.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted during pendency of trial upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties each.

Mukesh Babu Sharma vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11693 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Mukesh Babu Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Garun Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.65 of 2008, under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police StationHathras Kotwali, District- Hathras.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. In this case, applicant was posted as clerk in Canara Bank at Hathras. Three demand drafts mentioning amount of Rs. 11,000/- in each were issued from the Central Bank of India, Agra where informant was Branch Manager but account holde Rambabu Sharma presented the demand drafts before the bank of present applicant which was sent for clearance to Central Bank of India, Agra from where clearance was given as a result amount was transferred in the account of Rambabu Sharma Later on present F.I.R. was lodged by Branch Manager Central Bank of India Agra Mr. M.L. Bharti alleging that the aforesaid amount in the drafts was changed by committing forgery mentioning the amount of Rs. 90,000/- on the place of Rs. 11,000/- of each draft. It is also submitted that applicant sent the demand drafts for clearance to the issuing bank at Agra from where clearance was given as a result he transferred the amount to the account of Rambabu Sharma. He worked in the course of discharge of his duties and liability was on the issuing bank to scrutinize the demand drafts when sent for clearance but they were negligent in discharge of their duties. In this way applicant cannot be said to have committed forgery. Charge sheet was filed in the year 2008 which was challenged before this Court by co-accused and proceedings were stayed and as a result he did not appear before the learned court and no any process was issued against him. In pursuance of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asian Reserfacing of Road Agency Vs. C.B.I. and Circular No. 12 dated 26.4.2018 issued by this Court, the stay order was deemed to be vacated and no any order of stay was produced

¶8

before the learned court as a result, process was issued. Now, he is ready to face the trial. There is apprehension of arrest against the applicant, so request for anticipatory bail during pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail

¶10

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and without making any comment on the merit of the case, there appears ground to grant anticipatory bail in favour of applicant during pendency of trial.

¶11

The applicant- Mukesh Babu Sharma shall be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicant shall appear before the learned trial court unless exempted;

¶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 office;

¶14

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

¶15

In default of any of the conditions, this bail order shall stand automatically vacated.

¶16

Order Date :- 19.12.2024 G.S

¶17

Digitally signed by :- GHAN SHYAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mukesh Babu Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Babu Sharma 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

Juvenile X Thru. His Natural Guardian Father Y vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Malik @ Asmat Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Rajmani Singh Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Satya Prakash Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Maya Devi vs State of U.P.and Another

Kranti Mishra vs State of U.P.