Dismissed

Ankit Mittal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2024ABAIL/2409/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This interim order grants an interim anticipatory bail to the applicant in a matrimonial dispute case involving multiple IPC charges until the next hearing. The applicant must execute a personal bond and provide two solvent sureties while adhering to specific conditions like appearing for interrogation and not tampering with evidence or witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail granted on furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties subject to specific conditions until the next date of listing.

Ankit Mittal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2409 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Ankit Mittal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Kumar (Singh),Abhishek Misra,Rishabh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 258 of 2024 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 377, 406 of IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act Police Station- Vibhuti District- Lucknow.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He submits that the matter is of matrimonial dispute and due to enmity, the wife of the applicant has lodged the first information report and for giving the gravity of offence, she has also mentioned the offences under section 377 of IPC though, the same do not attract in the present matter. He added that since, after the amendment on 3.2.2013, the offences arising out of section 377 of IPC do not attract and therefore, the rest of the sections which are imposed are triable by Magistrate. He also submits that there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to commit the offence and the whole story is concocted and baseless narrated in the FIR. He also added that the applicant is a reputed person and submits that there is apprehension that police will arrest him thus, submission is that the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the submissions aforesaid and submits that there is specific allegation against the applicant for committing offence and the nature of offence is heinous and as such, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶9

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, till the next date of listing, the present applicant- Ankit Mittal

¶10

shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶11

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

¶12

(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;

¶13

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

¶14

(iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶18

Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date.

¶19

Steps be taken within a week.

¶20

If steps are taken, office shall proceed accordingly.

¶21

List/put up this matter on 07.11.2024.

¶22

In the meantime, the State as well as opposite party no. 2 may file their counter affidavits.

¶23

Order Date :- 23.10.2024 Mayank

¶24

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ankit Mittal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Mittal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

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

Sukhraj vs Union of India Thru. N.C.B. Zonal Unit Lko.

Sri Aunrag Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chef Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Pankaj Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Jabir vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Mohd. Shameem @ Shammu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Sadruddin @ Sadru vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko