Disposed

Rakesh Kanojia v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2025ABAIL/823/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicant arising out of offenses under Sections 406, 417, 420, 504, and 506 IPC. The court imposed standard conditions including availability for interrogation and no tampering with evidence, subject to a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail granted subject to personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties and specified conditions regarding appearance and conduct.

Rakesh Kanojia vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 823 of 2025

¶3

Applicant :- Rakesh Kanojia Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Mundendra Kumar Shukla and Sri R.R Shukla who have filed Vakalatnama on behalf of informant; learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No.886 of 2024, under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Bisrakh, District, Gautambuddh Nagar, during pendency of trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. The investigation is going on. The applicant has no criminal history. Instant case is squarely covered under section 482 B.N.S.S. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would co-operate with the investigation. Applicant has definite apprehension of his arrest by the police.

¶8

Sri Mundendra Kumar Shukla and Sri R.R Shukla, counsel for the informant pray for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks' thereafter.

¶9

List this case immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period.

¶10

As an interim protection, till the next date of listing fixed for hearing on this application, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the S.H.O of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶11

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

¶12

(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶13

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P./C.P./A.C.P concerned.

¶14

(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

(v) The applicant shall not pressurized/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

(vi) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted.

¶17

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate/concerned court is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶18

Order Date :- 4.2.2025 Meenu Singh

¶19

Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rakesh Kanojia v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kanojia v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Abdullah vs State of U.P.

Nitin Alias Kalu vs State of U.P.

Raju Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Jaswant Singh Yadav vs State of U.P.

Vipin Sharma and Another vs State of Up

Sarita Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others