Allowed

Avanish Kumar Trivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jun 2024ABAIL/1323/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant against allegations of impersonation and criminal forgery under IPC Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, and 471. The court noted the applicant was not initially named in the FIR or first statement and had no criminal antecedents. Application allowed subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on anticipatory bail in the said case with two sureties each, subject to conditions including cooperation in investigation.

Avanish Kumar Trivedi vs State of U.P. Thru… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45153

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1323 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Avanish Kumar Trivedi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Desh Ratan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Counter Affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A for the respondent State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.55 of 2024 under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sitapur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is neither named in the FIR nor in the first statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. While giving restatement after one month for the first time name of the applicant has been taken by the complainant. The allegation upon the applicant is of impersonating Prakash Mishra, however, the investigating officer has not conducted any investigation with regard to the named accused persons. Neither the witnesses of the sale deed have been chargesheeted. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.

¶9

Learned Addl. Government Advocate though has opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶10

On due consideration of the arguments advanced; perusal of the record; restatement of the complainant; so also the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, offences are triable by

¶11

Magistrate, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the liberty of the applicant may be protected in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶12

Therefore, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. It is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant Avanish Kumar Trivedi shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid F.I.R./case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O./court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses.

¶14

(ii) The accused-applicant shall report to the concerned police station/investigating officer within twenty days from today and will remain present as and when the arresting officer /I.O./ S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation.

¶15

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

¶16

(iv) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶17

Order Date :- 3.7.2024 Madhu

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Avanish Kumar Trivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avanish Kumar Trivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajeev Singh @ Pintu Singh vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Pankaj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Akhilesh Dwivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Amit @ Kutnu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Ram Sanehi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Raghuvir Singh @ Bhola Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko.