Allowed

Monu @ Vijay Kumar v. State of Up

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2024ABAIL/8262/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Monu @ Vijay Kumar in a cheating case involving IPC and Information Technology Act offences. The grant was based on the principle of parity as co-accused had already been granted bail. The applicant was released on personal bond with two sureties subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Accused-applicant released forthwith on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial subject to personal bond and two sureties.

Monu @ Vijay Kumar vs State of Up — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:134732

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8262 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Monu @ Vijay Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vishal Tandon Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vishal Tandon, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pranshu Kumar, 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 No.8089 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.1003 of 2018 registered under Sections 420, 465, 468, 470, 471 IPC, Section 66D I.T. (Amendment) Act and Section 34 of Aadhar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 at Police StationKotwali Nagar, District Muzaffarnagar with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that coaccused persons, Kamal Singh and Pramod Snehi, have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 25.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.11801 of 2022. Therefore, the present applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity.

¶9

As far as the criminal history of the applicant is concerned, all the four cases are of similar nature and has been foisted on him one after another. The applicant has no previous criminal history except the said four cases. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he will cooperate in the trial failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

¶10

The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgements passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 and in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another , (2022) 10 SCC 51 , the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶12

Let the accused-applicant- Monu @ Vijay Kumar be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

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

¶14

(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;

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 22.8.2024 Ravi/-

¶22

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Monu @ Vijay Kumar v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monu @ Vijay Kumar v. State of Up

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

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

Ashish Kumar and Another vs State of Up and Another

Tausif vs State of U.P. and Another

Jaheen Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another