Sagar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:197773

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 11645 of 2024

Applicant :- Sagar Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Mabood Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Imran Mabood Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, 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. 469 of 2024, registered under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 316(2), 111 B.N.S. and Section 66D of I.T. Act at Police Station-Sector 63 (NOIDA), District-Gautam Budh Nagar with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the police had arrested several other co-accused persons from the call centre purported to have been run by the applicant and heavy amount of electronic items i.e laptop, chargers etc. were recovered from there. Subsequently, another premise was raided within the jurisdiction of police station- Phase 3 the same day and heavy amount of recovery was made from there and applicant is stated to be the owner of the said premise also.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case and he has nothing to do with the said offence. He is neither the manager nor the owner of the said premise. It is further stated that the said rent deed has been signed by one Islam and had the applicant been the owner, he would have signed the said rent deed with the owner of the building.

¶11

Learned counsel has further argued that not a single penny has been transferred to the account of the applicant or any of the co-

¶12

accused persons. It is a clear cut case of false implication. It is next stated that except two cases instituted at a go, the applicant has no other criminal history to his credit.

¶13

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

¶14

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. 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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(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;

¶19

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶20

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶21

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 17.12.2024 Sumit S

¶25

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶26

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

Sagar Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases