Allowed

Ramesh Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2024ABAIL/45/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in a case under Sections 406, 419, 420 IPC alleging fraud. The court granted bail, noting the chargesheet was already filed without arrest, co-accused had obtained similar relief, and the applicant cooperated with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to furnishing personal bond and two sureties, availability for interrogation, non-interference with witnesses, and non-departure from the country without court permis

Ramesh Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:2631

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 45 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Indra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned AGA informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including up-to-date case diary and the charge-sheet in this case has already been submitted.

¶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- Ramesh Kumar Tiwari in Case Crime No. 259 of 2019, under Sections 406,419,420 I.P.C., Police Station Kumarganj, District Faizabad/Ayodhya, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as she 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

While drawing the attention of this Court towards the FIR as well as the order of coordinate Bench of dated 30.5.2020 passed in Bail No. 2966 of 2020, it is vehemently submitted that the instant matter is pertaining to the dispute between the Directors of the Company and the FIR of this case has been lodged by one Ajay Mohan Pandey alleging that the applicant himself had taken Rs. 2.50 crores from the Company and it is on his instance, huge money has been transferred to the bank account of co-accused Sarvesh Pandey, Sushil Singh and Om Prakash Tiwari.

¶11

It is vehemently submitted that the co-accused persons namely, Om Prakash Tiwari and Sarvesh Pandey have been granted anticipatory bail vide orders dated 28.10.2023 and 8.12.2023 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court as well as

¶12

by the trial court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 2027 of 2023 and 223 of 2023, respectively. Criminal history of two cases has been explained in para nos. 19 and 20 of the bail application.

¶13

It is further submitted that applicant is a respectable citizen of the locality. 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.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant, but admits that the chargesheet in this case has been filed without making arrest of him.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that identically placed coaccused persons namely, Om Prakash Tiwari and Sarvesh Pandey against whom the allegations of receiving Rs. 50 lakhs and 4 crores have been alleged, have been granted anticipatory bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court as well as by the trial court, respectively. Chargesheet in this case has also been submitted. Moreover, criminal history of two cases of the applicant has been adequately explained and he appears to have cooperated in the investigation and the chargesheet has been filed without making his arrest.

¶16

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 material/evidence available against the applicant, the applicant may be provided protection from arrest.

¶17

Thus the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is provided that in the event of arrest of the applicant- Ramesh Kumar Tiwari in the above-mentioned case under any process of the trial court or on his/her appearance/surrender before the trial court within 20 days from today, whichever is earlier, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on

¶18

his/her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶19

(1) The applicant shall make himself/herself available for interrogation or even for discovery of any fact by a police officer as and when required, in case further investigation is directed.

¶20

(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;

¶21

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

¶22

Applicant shall remain present before the trial court as and when his/her presence would be required and he would not take adjournment especially when the prosecution witnesses would be in attendance.

¶23

If in the opinion of the trial court default of any of the condition placed above is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and shall proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶24

It is clarified that all the observations contained in this order are only for disposal of this anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial proceedings in any manner.

¶25

Order Date :- 10.1.2024 Shravan

¶26

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

Ramesh Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

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

Afsar Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Arvind Kumar Nahar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Prabhu Prasad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home. Lko.

Nafees Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Ramesh Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Dinesh Dutt Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another