Maheep Kumar Ojha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:33702

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 572 of 2025

Applicant :- Maheep Kumar Ojha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amol Kumar Srivastava,Javed Ahmad Siddique,Parvez Ahmad Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Supplementary filed today explaining previous criminal history of one case is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA appearing on behalf of State. In view of order being passed, notice opposite party no.2 stands dispensed with.

¶8

This third anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 134 of 2023 under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Balrampur.

¶9

Earlier applicant's first anticipatory bail application bearing Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.2411 of 2024 and second anticipatory bail application bearing Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 165 of 2025 have been dismissed with liberty to file afresh vide orders dated 23.10.2024 and 05.02.2025 respectively.

¶10

As per contents of First Information Report, allegation levelled is of opening loan account with the bank concerned fabricating documents pertaining to mother of informant. Loan is also said to have been granted with reported connivance of bank officials although no such loan was even sought by the informant's mother.

¶11

It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that he is neither nominated in the FIR nor has any allegation being levelled against him and that his name has been introduced during the course of investigation only on account of the fact that he paid one of the installments due against the loan. It is submitted that loan even otherwise is a secured loan and there is no allegation of any default of the said loan. It is submitted that investigation is still ongoing in which applicant undertakes to co-operate.

¶12

Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that complicity of applicant is clearly evident in view of the fact that it is the brother of applicant who obtained a loan by submitting forged documents. It is, however, admitted that investigation is still ongoing and there is nothing adverse with regard to applicant's co-operation.

¶13

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, it appears that applicant is not nominated in the FIR and has been introduced during course of investigation on the ground that he paid one of the installments due against the loan. The aspect of forgeries and loan of applicant is still under investigation in which applicant undertakes to co-operate.

¶14

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.

¶15

In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant- Maheep Ojha 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20