Allowed

Ram Chandar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2024ABAIL/517/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the application for anticipatory bail filed by Ram Chandar in a case concerning cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. The court held that since the accused was not arrested during investigation and the charge sheet was filed, bail should be granted as a matter of course, relying on Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Ram Chandar was released forthwith on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

Ram Chandar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

(Through Video Conferencing)

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:23663

¶3

Court No. - 33

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 517 of 2024 Applicant :- Ram Chandar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Kunwar Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Kunwar Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Avisesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.21 of 2021, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and 3/7 E.C. Act at Police Station- Khodare, District- Gonda with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant was granted anticipatory bail, till submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., by this Court vide order dated 5.4.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.508 of 2022. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant has not misused the opportunity granted earlier on and has cooperated during investigation. Subsequent to it, the final report (charge-sheet) has been submitted in the instant case against the applicant on 2.3.2023 and the cognizance has been taken by the court concerned.

¶10

In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director AIR 2021 SC 4154 , wherein the Court has clearly held that if a person, who is an accused in a non-bailable/cognizable offence, was not taken into custody during the period of investigation, in such a case, it is appropriate that he may be released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.

¶11

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made

¶12

against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant undertakes that he has cooperated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

Relying on its judgement passed in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 , the Apex Court in Md. Asfak Alam Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2023) 8 SCC 632 has stated that once the charge-sheet was filed and there was no impediment, at least on the part of the accused, the court having regard to the nature of the offences, the allegations and the maximum sentence of the offences they were likely to carry, ought to have granted the bail as a matter of course. However, the court did not do so but mechanically rejected and, virtually, to rub salt in the wound directed the appellant to surrender and seek regular bail before the trial court. Thus, the High Court fell into error in adopting such a casual approach.

¶15

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶16

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed . Let the accused-applicant- Ram Chandar be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶17

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

¶18

(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;

¶19

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous

¶20

permission of the court;

¶21

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶26

Order Date :- 18.3.2024/ Vikas

¶27

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Chandar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Chandar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Home 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

Amarjeet vs State of Up and Another

Narendra Singh Yadav vs State of Up 2 Others

Chandra Prakash vs State of Up and Another

Ram Chandar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Arpit Agrawal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Bhura @ Brijesh @ Vijay and Another vs State of Up Others