Allowed

Virendra Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue , Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2024ABAIL/2639/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to Virendra Kumar Shukla in an IPC case involving forgery and cheating. The court noted the significant delay of 28 years in registering the FIR and the lack of departmental enquiry by the erstwhile principal. Bail was extended subject to standard conditions including availing interrogation and appearing before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail extended to the applicant till disposal of the trial subject to conditions regarding interrogation, no tampering, no leaving India, and appearing before the trial court.

Virendra Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:80845

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2639 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue , Lucknow And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bhanu Pratap Singh,Durgesh Kumar Verma,Harsh Vardhan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the accused-applicant on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 39 of 2018, U/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the I.P.C., Police Station-Tulsipur, District-Balrampur.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated. He added that the applicant is posted as Principal in the college in question and the Ex. Principal of the college has lodged the first information report while alleging that the marksheet, which has been produced by the applicant for appointment, is a forged one, though, no departmental enquiry has ever been conducted and without collecting any cogent piece of evidence, the false and fabricated allegations have been levelled. He added that after 28 years, the first information report has been lodged while preferring the application under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. He next added that the marksheet is not forged and there is no such substantial evidence. He added that the chargesheet has been filed and there is no complaint that the applicant has ever

¶9

absconded from the investigation proceedings and he undertakes that he will always cooperate in the trial proceedings. He next submits that the applicant is Principal of the college and if he is sent to jail, he will suffer irreparable loss for his no fault and there is an acute apprehension that the police will arrest him and as such, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is not entitled for any relief as after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant is involved in committing offence and there are ample evidence against him.

¶11

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the first information report has been lodged after an application under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was preferred, after 28 years of the alleged incident and that too, by the Ex. Principal of the College against the present Principal of the college. The fact remains that the chargesheet has been filed and the counsel for the State could not substantiate that the applicant was not cooperating in the investigation proceedings.

¶12

It has also been undertaken that the applicant will cooperate in the trial proceedings and there is no previous criminal history of the applicant and he is the Principal of the college in question. Considering overall scenario of the case, this court finds it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and therefore, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Virendra Kumar Shukla till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

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

¶14

(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;

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶19

Order Date :- 4.12.2024 AKS

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Virendra Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue , Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue , Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sushil Kumar Goswami Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Kamla Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Khelavan @ Ramkhelawan Kotedar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko and Another

Sunil Kumar Patel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Rohit Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko

Pankaj Kumar Shukla and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs and 3 Others