Allowed

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2024ABAIL/88/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought anticipatory bail in a cheating/forgery case alleging he conspired with co-accused to sell a plot to an informant through an impersonated seller. The court noted he was neither purchaser nor seller nor witness to the sale deed and protected his liberty till filing of police report under Section 173(2).

What did the court decide?

In event of arrest, release on anticipatory bail on personal bond with two sureties, protection till filing of police report u/s 173(2), subject to stated conditions.

Anil Kumar vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 88 of 2024

¶2

Applicant :- Anil Kumar

¶3

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No. 1069/2022, under Sections 447/406/504/506/419/420/467/468/471 P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki.

¶7

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the applicant in connivance with co-accused persons by hatching conspiracy has sold a plot to the informant by impersonating someone else as seller and has usurped the consideration amount of Rs. 3,90,000/-.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is neither the seller nor the purchaser. He is not even the witness in the alleged sale deed. Only allegation against the applicant is of committing conspiracy. The offences are triable by magistrate. The applicant has explained his criminal history in the supplementary affidavit.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant submitting that the investigation is going on.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that he will cooperate in the investigation.

¶11

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation, coupled with the undertaking given by the applicant that he will cooperate in the

¶12

investigation as also the fact that the applicant is not a previous convict; he is neither the purchaser, nore the seller in the alleged sale deed, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the liberty of the applicant may be protected till filing of police report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶13

In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid Case Crime number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses.

¶15

(2) The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/1.O./S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation.

¶16

(3) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶17

(4) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶18

The application is allowed . Order Date :- 30.7.2024 R.C.

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Maniram Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko.

Hazrat Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Satyam Bajpei Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Vimlesh @ Raka Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko.

Rishab Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Radheraman Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko