Dismissed

Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2024ABAIL/7543/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought in an FIR alleging a fake Indian Army recruitment job racket involving cheating, forgery and impersonation. The court found the applicant's specific role as impersonator showed prima facie involvement, distinguished his case from co-accused granted bail earlier, and rejected the application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Amit Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:124824

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7543 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Amit Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA-I, for the State, apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, the instant anticipatory bail application may be finally disposed off.

¶7

Heard Sri Anurag Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA-I, for the State.

¶8

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.218 of 2023, under Sections 418,420,467,468,471, 342, 506 and 120B IPC, Police Station Jewar, District Gautam Buddh Nagar during pendency of the trial.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged on 21.8.2023 against the applicant and ten others and according to the FIR under the false promise to provide job to the informant in Indian Army applicant and other accused duped the informant and received from him Lacs of Rupees. It is further mentioned in the FIR that applicant introduced himself as 'Commando Vivek' and thereafter a fake medical examination of informant was also conducted and fake appointment letter was also given to him.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the basis of false allegation applicant has been made accused in the present

¶11

matter only being brother-in-law of principal accused Manish Jadaoun.

¶12

He further submits that admittedly applicant did not receive any money and only allegation against him is that he introduced himself as 'Commando Vivek'.

¶13

He further submits that in the present matter along with applicant co-accused Dushtant and Shailendra @ Munna, father and brother of principal accused Manish Jadaoun, were also made accused and as per allegation on behalf of co-accused Manish Jadaoun, they also received money from the informant but after considering entire facts of the case they have been released on anticipatory bail by this Court and their orders have been annexed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed in support of the instant anticipatory bail application.

¶14

He further submits that however, anticipatory bail application of co-accused Manish Jadaoun has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 21.2.2024 passed in Criminal Misc.Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1602 of 2024 after considering the fact that he was the principal accused.

¶15

He further submits that the case of applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Manish Jadaoun and at better footing than co-accused Dushtant and Shailendra @ Munna as there is no allegation that applicant received any money from the informant.

¶16

He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and the investigation of the case is still pending and police is trying to arrest the applicant.

¶17

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and

¶18

submits that applicant and others by playing fraud received lacs of rupees from the informant under the false promise to provide him job in Indian Army and, however, there is no allegation that applicant also received any money but there is specific allegation against him that he introduced himself as 'Commando Vivek' and, therefore, it reflects that he equally participated in the alleged crime.

¶19

Learned AGA further submits that the case of applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Dushtant and Shailendra @ Munna as after considering the facts that being father and brother of principal accused, they received money and there was no direct involvement of both the accused in the present matter, as they were enlarged on anticipatory bail, therefore, considering the nature of allegation against the applicant the instant anticipatory bail application of applicant should be dismissed.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶21

However, from the record it reflects that there is no allegation, applicant also received any money but there is specific allegation against the applicant that he introduced himself as 'Commando Vivek', therefore, prima facie his involvement in the present case appears to be apparent even from the face of the record.

¶22

However, anticipatory bail application of co-accused Dushtant and Shailendra @ Munna have been allowed by this Court but from their bail orders which have been annexed along with the instant anticipatory bail application it reflects that as there was neither any allegation of inducement against them nor there was

¶23

any allegation that they provided fake certificates, therefore, they were released on anticipatory bail, and therefore, considering the facts of the case, the case of applicant appears to be distinguishable from co-accused Dushtant and Shailendra @ Munna.

¶24

Further law is settled that power to grant anticiptory bail is an extra ordinary power and being extra ordinary power, it cannot be used in routine matter.

¶25

Further, for anticipatory bail it is necessary that applicant is having apprehension of his arrest and apprehension of arrest should not be imaginary but must be based on concrete facts.

¶26

However, in paragraph-18 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant anticipatory bail application, applicant made an averment that he is having strong apprehension of arrest but on the basis of such vague averment made by him, it cannot be said that he is having apprehension of arrest.

¶27

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, I am not inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail.

¶28

Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application is rejected.

¶29

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶30

Order Date :- 2.8.2024

¶31

SKM

¶32

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Sadhana and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Jain vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Meera and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Abdul Hameed vs State of U.P. and Another

Munshaid vs State of U.P.