Allowed

Sanjay Sharma and Another v. State of Up

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2024ABAIL/8969/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to two applicants accused of cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy in a property dispute, finding no prima facie case to deny bail and releasing them on bond with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted in respect of offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C. on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties each.

Sanjay Sharma and Another vs State of Up — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:152386

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8969 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjay Sharma And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Lal Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶7

The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants - Sanjay Sharma and Sonu Sharma in Case Crime No. 209 of 2024, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Phase-3, District - Gautam Buddha Nagar.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that as per allegation in the First Information Report, it is alleged that applicants were broker and amount was given for plot in question. The power of attorney was executed by one Zameela Khatoon. It is submitted that applicants are neither the owner nor have signed the documents. Applicants worked as property dealer and as such, no offence can be said to have been made out against applicants. It is submitted that there is defect in title. Property has been handed over to informant by way of general power of attorney by a third person. It is further submitted by learned counsel for applicants that applicants are innocent and have no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. It is further argued that applicants' case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No prima facie case is made out against the applicants. If the applicants are enlarged on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty and cooperate with the investigation. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest by the police any time. Applicants have no criminal history.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer but does not dispute the factual matrix.

¶10

It is not shown by learned AGA that the offence in question will

¶11

have impact on society at large. It is not shown that act causes harm to the society. The accusations arise out of dispute between individuals. It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicants for relief of anticipatory bail. Learned AGA has not raised concern that any prejudice would be caused to free, fair and full investigation in the event the applicants are granted anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶12

Learned Counsel for opposite parties has not placed any criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history.

¶13

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicants fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶14

In view of above, applicants are granted anticipatory bail in respect of offence described in para 2 of the present order. In the event of arrest of the applicants, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police office as and when required.

¶16

(ii) The applicants 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 themselves from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶17

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court concerned.

¶18

(iv) In the event, applicants change residential address, the applicants shall inform the court concerned/Investigating Officer about new residential address in writing.

¶19

(v) The applicants shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required.

¶20

(vi) The applicants shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police.

¶21

(vii) The applicants shall maintain law and order.

¶22

(viii) The applicants shall at the time of execution of the bond, furnish their address and mobile number to investigating officer, and the court concerned.

¶23

(ix) The applicants shall regularly remain present during the trial, and cooperate with the Court to complete the trial for the above offences.

¶24

(x) Non presence of the applicants or their counsel before the court concerned shall be construed as violation of the present order and the court concerned would be at liberty to take coercive measures in accordance with law.

¶25

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicants.

¶26

With the directions made above, the anticipatory bail application stands allowed .

¶27

Order Date :- 19.9.2024

¶28

D. Tamang

¶29

Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay Sharma and Another v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Sharma and Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Saxena vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dr Manju Gupta @ Manju Varshney vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Kumar @ Sonu Bhartiya vs State of U.P.

Neeraj Saunakiya vs State of Up and 3 Others

Kala Alias Irashad vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandani Chauhan vs State of U.P. and Another