Allowed

Ankit Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2024ABAIL/9/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal anticipatory bail application, the Allahabad High Court granted protection from arrest to the applicant, a marginal witness in a forgery case involving impersonation. The court held that even if the prosecution's case stands, the specific IPC sections against the applicant do not attract liability. Bail was granted conditioned on a personal bond and surrendering upon charge-sheet sub

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties.

Ankit Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1123

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ankit Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Girdhari Lal Yadav,Shivesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

It is informed by learned A.G.A. that complete case diary of the case is available. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicant could be finally disposed of.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present application has been moved by the accusedapplicant- Ankit Tiwari in Case Crime No.0097 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Mohanlalganj Lucknow South, District Lucknow, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶10

It is further submitted that allegations against the applicant are to the tune that he has been a witness of sale deed, which has been executed in favour of a co-accused by impersonating the real owner, however, the applicant is not the beneficiary of the said document (sale deed) and he has only stand as a witness bonafidely.

¶11

It is also submitted that as the investigation is pending, he would cooperate in the investigation and would remain present before the investigating officer as and when his presence would be required and in case of submission of charge sheet he would also cooperate in the trial. It is highlighted that the charged offences against the applicants are triable by magistrate and even if the case of the prosecution is taken on its face, the penal

¶12

sections with regard to Sections 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. would not be attracted.

¶13

It is further submitted that identically placed co-accused person namely Rohit Yadav, who was also a marginal witness, has been granted regular bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13422 of 2023.

¶14

It is further submitted that applicant is a respectable citizen of the locality and is having no criminal history. The investigating officer without there being any cogent and reliable material/evidence is making all out efforts to apprehend/arrest the applicant and there is no apprehension that after being granted facility of anticipatory bail, applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. He undertakes that he is ready to cooperate in the investigation as well as in the trial as and when required and thus, protection from arrest be granted to him.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the applicant may not be get any benefit of the bail granted to the co-accused Rohit Yadav as his bail application has been granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary as he has identified the parties, therefore, he is not entitled for any protection.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that there appears no dispute that the applicant is only a marginal witness of the sale deed, which is shown to have been executed by a person impersonating real owner of the property, however, the applicant may not be termed the beneficiary of any transaction as the sale deed is not in his favour and the alleged offences are triable by magistrate. Even if the case of the prosecution is believed as it is, Sections 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. would not be attracted against the applicant as it is not a case of forgery rather it is a case of execution of sale deed by impersonating real owner and the applicant is only a marginal witness.

¶17

Thus having regard to the reasons mentioned above and keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. , MANU/SC/1021/2010, Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. , MANU/SC/0100/2020 , Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. v. State of Punjab, MANU/SC/0215/1980 : 1980 (2) SCC 565, and Nathu Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others :(2021) 6 SCC 64 , in the considered opinion of this court, having regard to the

¶18

material/evidence available against the applicant, the applicant may be provided protection from arrest for a limited period of time.

¶19

Thus the instant anticipatory bail application is finally disposed of in terms that till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent court in the event of arrest of the applicant- Ankit Tiwari , involved in aforesaid case crime number shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/Investigating Officer concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

(1) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation or for discovery of any fact by a police officer/investigating officer as and when required and will cooperate in the investigation.

¶21

(2) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 5.1.2024 Anupam S/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ankit Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and 3 Others

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

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

Atul Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Amardeep Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Pankaj Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ajay Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Balla Ram and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.