Allowed

Amit Soni v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2024ABAIL/7253/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Amit Soni, who was apprehended of arrest in a case concerning unfair means in police recruitment. The bail is valid only until the filing of the police report.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties subject to specific conditions.

Amit Soni vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:132103

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7253 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Amit Soni Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Amit Soni in Case Crime No.0059 of 2023, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, 3/9 of U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1988 and Section 66-D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 at Police Station - Sikandara, District Agra with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the applicant along with other coaccused persons is stated to have used some unfair means in the entrance examination of Police Recruitment Board for constables and during investigation some evidence was collected that he was Centre Administrator in the College and some change in the answer sheets of the candidates was also found.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by more than six months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The said FIR has been instituted on the basis of speculation only. Learned counsel has further stated that there is no concrete evidence against the applicant. He is not named in the F.I.R. and during investigation on the basis of statement of one Bahadur Singh name of the applicant came into light. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant

¶10

undertakes that he has co-operated 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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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 " till filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC before the Competent Court. 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.

¶13

7. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC before the Competent Court on his 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

(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 him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 14.8.2024 safi

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit Soni v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Soni 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bashir Khan and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Shekhar vs State of U.P. and Anothers

Tinku Alias Shaikh Hasim vs State of U.P.

Smt Priyanka Sharma vs State of Up and 8 Others

Pankaj vs State of U.P.

Smt Payal Verma vs State of U.P. and 5 Others