Allowed

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

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2025ABAIL/2/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for cheating-related offences. Court noted charge sheet filed without arrest, offences triable by magistrate, applicant's cooperation and interim protection to co-accused, and allowed anticipatory bail on bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties and standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on anticipatory bail on personal bond Rs.50,000 with two sureties each, subject to five listed conditions including availability for interrogation and appearance before trial court.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11316

¶2

Court No. - 30

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lalu Prasad Bhatt,Rashmi Srivastava,Sachin

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed a supplementary affidavit today in the Court, which is taken on record.

¶9

The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/FIR No. 438/2022, under Sections 419/420/504/506 I.P.C., P.S. Mahmudabad, District Sitapur.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that charge sheet in the matter has been filed and during investigation, the applicant was not arrested. He further submits that all the offences are triable by magistrate and no useful purpose will be served by sending the applicant behind the bars. Learned counsel for the applicant has explained criminal history of the applicant in para 19 of the bail application.

¶11

He further submits that the applicant had fully co-operated in the investigation of case and will not induce and threat any person so as to dissuade him from disclosing any facts to the learned trial court. He further submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of District Sitapur and there is no chance of his absconding.

¶12

He further submits that co-accused Neel Kamal and Mahesh Shukla, who were assigned similar role, have been granted interim protection by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 09.09.2024 and 19.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No.2047/2024 and 2139/2024 respectively.

¶13

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, however, he could not be able to dispute the aforesaid fact submitted by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering the fact that during investigation, the applicant was not arrested; offences are triable by magistrate; co-accused Neel Kamal and Mahesh Shukla have been granted interim protection and the applicant had fully co-operated in the investigation of case and further considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶16

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed . In the event of arrest/appearance of applicant- Pradeep Kumar before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid F.I.R./Case Crime No.438/2022, under Sections 419/420/504/506 I.P.C., P.S. Mahmudabad, District Sitapur, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the learned Trial Court:-

¶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

¶19

evidence;

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

( Om Prakash Shukla,J. )

¶24

Order Date :- 21.2.2025 Saurabh

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Tribhuwan Nath Jayaswal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

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

Vivek Vishwas and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt. Santosh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another

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

Ram Aher and Another Vs Staet of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another