Allowed

Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Oct 2024ABAIL/9587/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed anticipatory bail for the accused in a cheating and criminal conspiracy case, noting the civil nature of the underlying dispute and lack of need for custodial interrogation, granting bail till the conclusion of trial.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till end of trial with a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties on conditions of appearance, non-inducement, and no departure from India without permission.

Rakesh Kumar vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 82

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9587 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Singh Dahiya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

Apprehending his arrest, the present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Rakesh Kumar in Criminal Case No.19932 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No.95 of 2019, under Sections 420, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Narsaina, District Bulandshahar, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶7

The prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. itself is that the present accused appellant Rakesh Kumar sold the share of the informant, his real brother, in favour of Naeem Akhatar. F.I.R. was lodged on 16.6.2023 and now charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He has been falsely implicated into this matter. It is further submitted that a civil suit between the parties regarding partition of the property is pending before the civil court which was initiated by the informant of this case. It is further submitted that the present applicant is bonfide sharer of the property in question and he has sold his share to co-accused Naeem Akhatar. It is also submitted that during investigation, the Investigating Officer has given notice to the applicant under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and he has been cooperative with the investigation throughout. It is next submitted that only process of bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant by the trial court and the applicant has not been declared proclaimed offender and as such he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the factual aspect that civil suit regarding share of ancestral property is pending before the civil court.

¶10

The dispute appears to be of civil nature. After submission

¶11

of charge-sheet, no custodial interrogation is required in the matter. The I.O. did not require the arrest of the applicant during investigation.

¶12

Although charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter, but in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶13

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶14

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶15

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till end of the trial in the matter.

¶16

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial on his 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 :-

¶18

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

¶19

(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 him / her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶20

(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 S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶21

In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶22

Order Date :- 15.10.2024 Rmk.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashraf @ Asraf vs State of Up and Another

Farhana vs State of U.P.

Mohit vs State of U.P. and Another

Kesari Nandan Gupta vs State of Up and Another

Pushpendra Sahu vs State of U.P. and Another

Vibhor Gautam vs Chumman Nath Swami