Allowed

Arjit Srivastava (Wrongly Described as Arijeet Srivastava in F.I.R) v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2024ABAIL/1499/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench allowed anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. wherein the applicant was not an owner of mortgaged properties, did not sign loan documents, and the FIR lacked specific averments of his commission of offence.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed on furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties subject to specified conditions.

Arjit Srivastava (Wrongly Described as Arijeet… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:51313

¶2

Court No. - 31

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1499 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Arjit Srivastava (Wrongly Described As Arijeet Srivastava In F.I.R)

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- R.B.S. Rathaur,Satyendra Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Shri R.B.S. Rathaur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Abhishek Kumar Singh, learned State Counsel and perused the record.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.30 of 2021 under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. registered at Police Station Hasanganj, District-Lucknow.

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 29.01.2021 against three persons - the applicant, his brother Harshit Srivastava and her mother Pushpa Srivastava, stating that the accused persons had fraudulently obtained loans from U.C.O. Bank by mortgaging disputed property and they committed default in repayment of the loan, thereby causing loss to the Bank.

¶10

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he resides at Banglore, he has not taken any loan from U.C.O. Bank and has not signed any document for taking any loan from U.C.O. bank. None of the properties mortgaged for taking loan, are owned by propriety and the applicant does not own any property in the District Lucknow. It has further been stated that he has no concern with his brother- coaccused Harshit Srivastava since the year 2012.

¶11

The applicant is working in a company at Banglore since the year 2015.

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the FIR does not contain any

¶13

specific averment of any act of commission by the applicant as the applicant categorically states that he resides at Banglore since the year 2015, he has not taken any loan from the bank and he has not signed any document in connection with any loan granted by U.C.O. Bank and that he does not own any property at Lucknow, including the properties which have been mortgaged, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

¶14

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed . In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant- Arjit Srivastava before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:

¶15

(i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶16

(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;

¶17

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court'

¶18

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶19

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

¶20

[Subhash Vidyarthi,J.]

¶21

Order Date :- 26.7.2024 -Amit K-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arjit Srivastava (Wrongly Described as Arijeet Srivastava in F.I.R) v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjit Srivastava (Wrongly Described as Arijeet Srivastava in F.I.R) v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kaushalendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Empowerment, Persons With Disabil. and Ors.

Vakeel Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Siraj Ahmad and 9 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Neelam Kaushal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Santosh Gupta @ Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Ravi Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko