Allowed

Mohit Gautam v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2024ABAIL/6718/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a cheating-forgery FIR concerning mismatched photographs during District Court employee record verification. Court granted anticipatory bail till submission of the police report under Section 173(2), with conditions, relying on Sushila Aggarwal.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail till submission of Section 173(2) police report on personal bond with two sureties, subject to stated conditions.

Mohit Gautam vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:113968

¶2

Court No. - 67

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6718 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohit Gautam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kunwar Bhaskar Parihar,Vikas Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 384 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 416 I.P.C., P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is alleged in the FIR that at the time of verification of record examination of Class-IV employee of District Court, Saharanpur, photograph of application got mismatched from Biomatric list. Till today, no charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant. He further submitted that coaccused, namely, Amit Kumar has been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 31.05.2024 and the applicant's case is similar to the co-accused, hence, applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Applicant has no previous criminal history. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would co-operate with the investigation.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant with the contention that the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail as prima facie case is made out. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record, only on the basis of imaginary fear, the anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶10

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case for the limited period considering the exception considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT

¶11

of Delhi)-2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶12

Let the applicant Mohit Gautam, who is involved in the aforesaid crime, be released on anticipatory bail till submission of police report U/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶13

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

¶14

(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶16

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶17

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶18

The present anticipatory bail application stands allowed .

¶19

Order Date :- 18.7.2024 Nitin Verma

¶20

Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohit Gautam v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Gautam v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Shyama vs State of U.P. and Another

Lalji Kannaujiya vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipin Kumar Tripathi vs State of U.P.

Smt Vakeela and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar Shah vs State of U.P.

Nakul Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another