Allowed

Sudhir Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2025/266/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application in a case of allegedly fake marksheets uploaded for pharmacy council registration, under sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) BNS. Interim bail had been granted by a co-ordinate bench; no counter affidavit was filed and no breach of conditions alleged. The interim order was made absolute and the application was allowed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sudhir Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 266 of 2024

¶3

Sudhir Kumar

¶4

.....Applicant(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ali Hasan, Ishraq Farooqui, Mohd. Suhail Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Brijesh Kumar Singh

¶5

Court No. - 13

¶6

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶7

Heard Shri Mohd. Suhail, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Virendra Kumar, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

¶8

The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of the following order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 20.12.2024:

¶9

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 404 of 2024, under sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) BNS P.S.- Ghazipur District - Lucknow.

¶11

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the allegation against the applicant is that he in collusion with the other beneficiaries uploaded the fake marksheets for getting registration in pharmacy counsel though, there is no cogent piece of evidence to support the version of prosecution. He added that the applicant has no criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 21 of the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application. He next submits that the applicant has always cooperated with the investigation proceedings and undertakes that he would never abscond from the same. He also submits that there is acute apprehension that the applicant will be arrested by the police thus, submission is that the the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶12

NABAIL No. 266 of 2024

¶13

¶14

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the submissions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is involved in committed offence, as such, he is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

¶15

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, till the next date of listing, the present applicant- Sudhir Kumar shall be released forthwith, in case of his arrest in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent 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;

¶19

(iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶20

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

¶21

(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

Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date.

¶24

Steps be taken within a week.

¶25

If steps are taken, office shall proceed accordingly.

¶26

List/put up this matter in the week commencing 27.01.2025.

¶27

In the meantime, the State as well as opposite party no. 2 may file their counter affidavits.

¶28

The office has reported that notice issued to the opposite party No.2 has been served but neither the opposite party No.2 nor the State has filed any counter affidavit.

¶29

Three co-accused persons Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Salman Manjar and

¶30

NABAIL No. 266 of 2024

¶31

¶32

Munendra have been granted anticipatory bail by means of orders dated 17.02.2025, 17.09.2025 & 17.09.2025 passed by this Court in Bail Application Nos.234 of 2024, 122 of 2024 & 2757 of 2024 respectively.

¶33

The learned A.G.A.-I does not allege violation of any condition of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶34

Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is nothing which may persuade this Court from taking a different view than the one taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶35

Accordingly, interim order dated 20.12.2024 is made absolute. The anticipatory bail application is allowed in terms of the aforesaid order.

¶36

September 23, 2025 S. Shivhare

¶37

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶38

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sudhir Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sudhir Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Haneef Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Umashankar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Kuldeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Sudhir Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Saurabh Jain vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ikbaal vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.