Allowed

Avinash v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2025ABAIL/130/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought in an FIR alleging embezzlement of company funds by ex-employees. Court noted co-accused already on regular bail and allowed the application, releasing the applicant on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on personal bond with two sureties, subject to standard conditions.

Avinash vs State of Up and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:1497

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 130 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Avinash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Dubey,Saumitra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Saumitra Dwivedi and Sri Manish Dubey, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri Rajnish Kumar Verma, holding brief of Sri Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, 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. 784 of 2023, registered under Sections 379, 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120B I.P.C. at Police Station- Indirapuram, DistrictGhaziabad with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to be the ex-employees of the company of the informant and there are allegations against them of having embezzled the amount belonging to the company.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The allegations are per se false. Even the Auditor Report indicates profit to the company, as such the allegations mentioned in the FIR stand falsified. Learned counsel has further stated that the embezzlement of the amount has not been mentioned in the FIR by the informant, as such the allegations are vague and based on suspicion only. The co-accused Mohit Kumar has already been enlarged on regular bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.47061 of 2023 vide order dated 24.11.2023.

¶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

¶12

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 cooperated 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.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Avinash 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 :- 3.1.2025 Sumit S

¶24

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶25

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

Avinash v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avinash v. State of Up and Another

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

Shahid Ali Alias Cheddu vs State of U.P.

Shanti Devi vs State of Up and Another

Sunil Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P.

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

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

Krishna Keshari @ Ajai Keshari vs State of U.P.