Allowed

Banwari v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Sept 2024ABAIL/8080/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought anticipatory bail in a case under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC claiming false implication and parity with co-accused Satish Kumar, with no prior criminal history. Relying on Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail till trial's conclusion with conditions including surrender of passport.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:143589

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8080 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Banwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Mishra,Dhirendra Babu Mishra,Ravindra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today in the Court, the same is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶8

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 32 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., Police StationMahewaghat, District- Kaushambi with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Learned counsel for the applicant claims parity with the co-accused person, namely, Satish Kumar, who has already been granted anticipatory by this Court vide order dated 18.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.11249, copy of the same has been placed on record. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 22 of the affidavit.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶11

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of

¶12

the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Banwari, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.

¶15

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶19

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶20

(vii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the

¶21

trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶22

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶23

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is allowed.

¶24

Order Date :- 4.9.2024 Krishna*/Ajeet

¶25

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

Banwari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Banwari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalit Kumar @ Nanne and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivmurat Bhimrav vs State of Up

Satya Prakash Thakur vs State of Up and Another

Anuj vs State of U.P. though it Principal Secretary and Another

Munnalal and 2 Others vs State of Up

Harsh Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another