Allowed

Rohit Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2024ABAIL/8275/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. allowed. Court observed applicant was falsely implicated in financial fraud with no money credited to his account and granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant enlarged on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each in like amount subject to standard conditions.

Rohit Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:147077

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8275 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rohit Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satyanand Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

1 Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶7

This application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 563 of 2020, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 504, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Phase III, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is the accountant of a company known as M/s Westland Trade Pvt. Ltd. No amount has been credited in the bank account of the applicant. The applicant is not the beneficiary of the illicit transaction. The applicant has been falsely implicated being an employee of the said company. The applicant was granted anticipatory bail till submission of Police report by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 7493 of 2022 (Rohit Kumar Yadav @ Rohit Yadav vs. State of U.P.). Sections 467, 468, 471, 504, 120B I.P.C. were added and charge-sheet has been submitted. Counsel for the applicant contends that the Director of the alleged company, Manish Kumar Dahia, has been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.08.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 830-837 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos. 4914-4921/2021). The applicant had cooperated in the investigation. No custodial interrogation is required. The applicant has been summoned by the concerned court vide order dated 11.09.2023. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para no. 30 of the bail application. In all the cases, the applicant has been enlarged on anticipatory bail. It is next submitted that the applicant has apprehension of his arrest and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the

¶10

record.

¶11

Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations and the fact that no amount has been credited in the bank account of the applicant, the fact that the applicant was granted anticipatory bail till submission of Police report by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 7493 of 2022 (Rohit Kumar Yadav @ Rohit Yadav vs. State of U.P.), the fact that the Director of the alleged company, Manish Kumar Dahia, has been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.08.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 830-837 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos. 4914-4921/2021). The applicant had cooperated in the investigation. Investigation has been completed. No custodial interrogation is required, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶12

In the event of arrest, the applicant Rohit Kumar Yadav , involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

(i) the applicant shall make himself available on each date fixed in the matter by the court concerned;

¶14

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court;

¶15

(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 concerned court.

¶16

Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

¶17

The application stands disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 10.9.2024 Sachin Mishra

¶19

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

Rohit Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Kumar Yadav 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ishteyaq Khan vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Kumar vs State of Up Others

Anoop vs State of U.P. and Another

Prempal and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Gulam Ali vs State of U.P.

Sarvan Kumar vs State of U.P.