Allowed

Vipin Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2024ABAIL/6876/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case involving violations of the U.P. Excise Act and IPC offenses. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents regarding exceptions to anticipatory bail and granted release pending the police report.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties.

Vipin Kumar Tripathi vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:113136

¶2

Court No. - 67

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6876 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vipin Kumar Tripathi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; 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.63 of 2024, under Sections 60 (1)/72 U.P. Excise Act and Section 420, 467, 468, 471, I.P.C., P.S. Raksa, District Jhansi, till conclusion of trial.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. All the allegations are false and fabricated. Prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is a wholesale dealer having licence for carrying the contract of supply of Bhang which was granted by the Commissioner of Excise U.P. Prayagraj (Annexure-6). It is next submitted that co-accused Mohd. Moin has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28.05.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 5384 of 2024, hence the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. The applicant has no 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 cooperate 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

¶11

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 of Delhi)-2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶12

Let the applicant Vipin Kumar Tripathi , who is involved in the aforesaid crime, be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report under Section 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 him 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 application stands allowed .

¶19

Order Date :- 16.7.2024 Meenu Singh

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vipin Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Mirza Saleem Beg and Another vs State of Up and Another

Rahees Khan and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyama vs State of U.P. and Another

Lalji Kannaujiya vs State of U.P. and Another

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