Rajesh Kumar Trivedi vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

Rajesh Kumar Trivedi vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Rajesh Kumar Trivedi to be released on anticipatory bail till submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions: (i) he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts so as to dissuade disclosure to the Court or police; (iii) he shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court and shall deposit his passport, if any, before the concerned S.S.P./S.P. In default of any condition, the Investigating Officer may file an appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail; the Investigating Officer is further directed to conclude the investigation expeditiously, preferably within three months of production of a certified copy of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Rajesh Kumar Trivedi, is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in Case Crime No. 0168 of 2019 (Sections 406, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Najeerabad, District Kanpur Nagar), given that charge-sheets stand filed against co-accused while investigation against him is still ongoing.

Court's answer

Applicant Rajesh Kumar Trivedi is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail till submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the stated conditions.

Ratio / Principle

The anticipatory bail is for a limited period, the Court considering the exception taken note of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), while expressly refraining from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Key takeaways

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the case in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, independently and without being prejudiced by any observation made by the Court in deciding the anticipatory bail application.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — S. 438 Cr.P.C. — applicant sought pre-arrest bail in Case Crime No. 0168 of 2019, under Sections 406, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Najeerabad, District Kanpur Nagar, the FIR having been lodged in 2019 through an application under S. 156(3) Cr.P.C., charge-sheets standing filed against co-accused while investigation against the applicant remained pending — HELD, without expressing any opinion on the merits and considering the nature of accusation and antecedents, the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail for a limited period, i.e., till submission of the police report under S. 173(2) Cr.P.C., the limited duration being considered in the light of the exception noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC Online SC 98 — release ordered on a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to three conditions (availability for interrogation; no inducement, threat or promise to witnesses; no departure from India without previous permission and deposit of passport before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned) — liberty reserved to the Investigating Officer to move for cancellation on breach — Investigating Officer directed to conclude the investigation expeditiously, preferably within three months of production of a certified copy of the order, independently and unprejudiced by any observation in the order. (Deepak Verma, J.; order dated 23.1.2025)