Allowed

Rajeev Kumar Rathour v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2024ABAIL/7834/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Rajeev Kumar Rathour in a criminal case involving cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court noted the applicant's cooperation and lack of arrest during investigation, applying Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on anticipatory bail until conclusion of trial with personal bond and two sureties on specific conditions.

Rajeev Kumar Rathour vs State of U.P. — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:133801

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7834 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Rathour Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashvani Tripathi,Raghuvansh Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, 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 in Case Crime No.402 of 2022, registered under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120B IPC at Police Station- Bidhnu, District Kanpur Nagar with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by this Court vide order dated 30.05.2023. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant has not misused the opportunity granted earlier and has cooperated during investigation.

¶9

The applicant has not been arrested during investigation and has co-operated during trial. There is a criminal history of one case to the credit of the applicant which is just after the institution of the present FIR by Sandeep Singh Rathour and to save his skin, the said FIR has been instituted.

¶10

In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Supreme 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 nonbailable/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. Several other

¶11

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. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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 Supreme Court.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(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; (iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 21.8.2024 Sumit S

¶23

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajeev Kumar Rathour v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar Rathour 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

Fateh Mohammad vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

Ganga Charan vs State of U.P. and Another

Aamir vs State of U.P. and Another

Lalit and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Aryan Mishra vs State of Up and Another