Allowed

Mayur Jain and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2024ABAIL/4272/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to Mayur Jain and Ankit Jain in a cheating and forgery case. The judgment deemed it a fit case considering the dispute settlement, lack of credible evidence, and supervision of investigation until the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each.

Mayur Jain and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:122031

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4272 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mayur Jain And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Ji Mishra,Kaushal Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This second anticipatory bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicants- Mayur Jain and Ankit Jain seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 86 of 2018, under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station- Hastinapur, DistrictMeerut. The first anticipatory bail application of the accusedapplicant has been decided on merits and it has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2023.

¶8

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. Investigation is going on in the matter.

¶9

It is further submitted that the first anticipatory bail application although was rejected on merits but a liberty was given by this Court to the parties to settle their disputes outside the Court and now the settlement has taken place and there is no dispute between the parties. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. representing the State has got instructions in this matter and he has made a submission before the Court that as per instructions received by him the parties have settled their dispute and the Director of the company has informed the I.O. that the parties have settled their disputes and the total outstanding amount due to the accused persons have been returned to the

¶11

company and the company has no grudge or grievance with the present applicants and this fact finds place in parcha no. 126 of the case diary itself.

¶12

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶13

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶14

Although notice has not been served so far on opposite party no.2 but keeping in view the instructions obtained by the learned State counsel and the earlier order passed by this Court, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶15

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶16

In the event of arrest of the applicants, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶17

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶18

(ii) The applicants 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 office.

¶19

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶20

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicants.

¶21

Order Date :- 30.7.2024 Fhd

¶22

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mayur Jain and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayur Jain and Another v. State of U.P. 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

Laxman Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

state of up vs Nempal Singh so Lekhraj singhLekhpal

Akhilesh Bind vs State of Up

Titoo Singh vs State of Up Others

Jitendra Singh vs State of Up

Suresh Kumar vs State of Up