Sudhanshu Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home/Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10636

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1917 of 2024

Applicant :- Sudhanshu Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home/Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Tripathi,Sudhanshu S. Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Gupta,Rajesh Kumar Agnihotri

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed today by counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard counsel for the applicant, counsel for the complainant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 335 of 2024, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC Police StationHargaon District- Sitapur.

¶9

Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that after thoroughly considering the factual matrix of the case, the interim bail was granted by coordinate bench of this Court to the applicant vide order dated 23.08.2024. The order dated 23.08.2024 is quoted hereinunder :-

¶10

"Vakalatnama filed by Shri Pankaj Gupta, Advocate on behalf of the complainant is taken on record.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for respondent State and learned counsel for the complainant.

¶12

The present application has been filed by the applicant Sudhanshu Shukla seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.335 of 2024 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Hargaon, District Sitapur.

¶13

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 15.2.2024 mudra loan of the complainant to the tune of Rs.7,00000/- was sanctioned. At the time of filing of the Mudra loan form, lot of signatures were made by the complainant at the instance of the accused persons. After that he has received a message that mudra loan has been sanctioned and Rs.7,00000/have been withdrawn. It is further alleged that after complaint being made to the bank manager, Rs.80,000/- cash has been given by him to the complainant. It is also alleged that Bank Manager Devesh Awasthi and

¶14

field officer Rahul Rastogi have been suspended and Sudhanshu Shukla, present applicant and Subham Shukla have been removed.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a daily wager employee, having no criminal history. He had no access so that he could have withdrawn the amount of loan. The sole responsibility is of the branch manager and not on the present applicant. He has been made scapegoat.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant pray for and is granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Perused the record.

¶17

Considering the above aspects of the matter, perusal of the record and the fact that the applicant is a daily wager employee he may have been falsely implicated in this case, as also the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶18

Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant Sudhanshu Shukla shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.

¶19

The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses. The accused-applicant shall report to the concerned police station/investigating officer within twenty days from today and will remain present as and when the arresting officer /I.O./ S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶20

In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection. List on 13.9.2024. "

¶21

This court while considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, had granted interim bail to the applicant on 23.08.2024 and now, after filing of the Counter Affidavit, no adverse material has been placed by the State against the applicant.

¶22

Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the instant regular anticipatory bail is hereby disposed of while granting bail to the applicant namely, Sudhanshu Shukla till filling of the chargesheet to the following conditions :-

¶23

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

¶24

(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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this protection.

¶29

Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Mayank

¶30

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sudhanshu Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home/Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhanshu Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home/Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

Pappu Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Sugendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko.

Rahul Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Vijay Kumar Alias Bablu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Sarfaraz Vs State of U.P. Thru. Cb.Cid, Lko.

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.