Allowed

Raj Kumar v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2024ABAIL/9482/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application, the High Court allowed the bail plea of the applicant, an Assistant Manager at IDBI Bank, falsely implicated in a loan fraud case. Relying on Sushila Aggarwal, the court granted bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed for the applicant with conditions to appear for interrogation and not tamper with evidence; personal bond and two sureties.

Raj Kumar vs State of Up and 3 Others — Money Laundering | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:193491

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9482 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Raj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sharda Prasad Mishra,Subhash Chandra Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Sharda Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 162 of 2022, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. at Police Station- Hathras Gate, District- Hathras with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted against eight persons of having taken the loan from IDBI Bank by using fake documents.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has further argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The name of the applicant has come up later on him being the Assistant Manager at the time of offence in the said Bank. Although, the applicant was not responsible for sanctioning any loan whatsoever. It is further stated that the said Sanctioning Authority was the Manager only.

¶11

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the

¶12

investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the applicant had prepared the field report of the property which was mortgaged.

¶14

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and taking into consideration that the applicant is the public servant and was not posted on the relevant post of sanctioning the loan and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court.

¶15

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Raj 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

(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;

¶18

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 10.12.2024 Sumit S

¶24

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raj Kumar v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. State of Up and 3 Others

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

Rahul Agrahari vs State of Up and Another

Fateh Mohammad vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sunil vs State of Up and Another

Satish Kumar Bharti vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhiruddin Chuadhary Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Mahendra Singh @ Abhay Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko