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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail protection: in the event of arrest, release on personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount, operative till filing of police report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to four conditions (cooperation/no witness influence; presence when called for investigation/interrogation; no leaving India without court permission; vacation of protection on default), without expression on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail under S. 438 Cr.P.C. should be granted to Brijesh Kumar Pandey, who was not nominated in the FIR but included during investigation, in Case Crime No. 61 of 2023 (Sections 409, 420, 120-B IPC, P.S. Ashiyana, District Lucknow).

Court's answer

Prima facie the applicant was not nominated in the FIR and was included only on the basis of certain financial transactions between him and the nominated person; investigation is yet ongoing, there is nothing adverse to his cooperation, and he has no previous criminal history.

Ratio / Principle

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the liberty of the applicant is protected till filing of the police report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C., in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC online SC 98.

Key takeaways

In the event of arrest, the applicant Brijesh Kumar Pandey shall be released on anticipatory bail in the said Case Crime number on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions: cooperation in investigation and not influencing witnesses; remaining present when called by the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O.; not leaving India without prior permission of the Court; and liberty to the investigating agency to seek vacation of the protection in case of default.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail - S. 438 Cr.P.C. - Applicant not named in FIR (Case Crime No. 61 of 2023, Sections 409, 420, 120-B IPC, P.S. Ashiyana, District Lucknow), included during investigation solely on the basis of financial transactions with the nominated accused Vijay Kumar - prima facie finding that applicant not nominated in FIR, investigation ongoing, applicant cooperating, no previous criminal history - liberty of applicant protected till filing of police report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. in view of dictum in Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC online SC 98 - in event of arrest, release on personal bond with two sureties each in like amount, with conditions (cooperation and no influencing witnesses; presence when called by arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O.; no leaving India without prior permission of Court; investigating agency free to seek vacation of protection on default) - without expressing any opinion on merits - application disposed of.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28067

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 522 of 2025

Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.

Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Pratap Singh,Vinod Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA appearing on behalf of State.

This first anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 61 of 2023 under Sections 409, 420, 120-B IPC Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow.

As per contents of First Information Report which has been lodged only against one Vijay Kumar and does not nominate the applicant, allegation levelled is with regard to fabrication of documents by the nominated person in order to being advantage as partner in the firm.

It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which could be evident from the fact that he is neither nominated in the FIR nor is there any allegation levelled against him of either being an employee or a Director of the firm. It is submitted that his name has been included during the course of investigation only on the basis of a transaction between him and the nominated person Vijay Kumar which was not with regard to allegations levelled. It is submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history and is co-operating in investigation.

Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that applicant's name has been included during the course of investigation in view of the fact that there was certain financial transaction between him and the nominated person with regard to illegal transfer of immovable property which belonged to the firm.

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, it appears that applicant has not been nominated in the

FIR and has been included only on the basis of certain financial transaction between him and the nominated person. Investigation is yet ongoing and there is nothing adverse that applicant is not co-operating in the same. It is also admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the that the liberty of the applicant may be protected till filing of police report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) -2020 SCC online SC 98.

In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant- Brijesh Kumar Pandey shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid Case Crime number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned with the following conditions:-

(1) The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses.

(2) The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/1.O./S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation.

(3) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

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

The application stands disposed of .

Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Satish

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench