Allowed

Mukesh Kesari v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 May 2025NABAIL/2455/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application under Sections 504, 506, 406 and 420 IPC for cheating and intimidation allegations in Varanasi. The court, relying on Sushila Aggarwal and Aman Preet Singh, allowed the application and directed release on arrest with standard conditions till conclusion of trial.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial; release on arrest on personal bond with two sureties, subject to standard conditions.

Mukesh Kesari Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83449

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2455 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Mukesh Kesari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised. Heard Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 158 of 2022, under Sections 504, 506, 406 & 420 of IPC, Police Station - Rohaniya, District - Varanasi, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

This is the second anticipatory bail application. The first one was allowed by this Court till submission of report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. vide order dated 30.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 9355 of 2022. Subsequent to it, the final report (charge sheet) has been submitted.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has the apprehension of his arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. The applicant has not misused the said opportunity granted till submission of report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C.

¶10

In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director AIR 2021 SC 4154, wherein the Court has clearly held that if a person, who is an accused in a nonbailable/cognizable offence, was not taken into custody during the period of investigation, in such a case, it is appropriate that he may be released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.

¶11

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that the applicant has criminal history of one case which stands explained in the supplementary affidavit. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶12

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶14

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶15

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Mukesh Kesari, involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶16

i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶17

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 evidence; iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶18

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶19

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

¶20

vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court

¶22

concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶23

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶24

Order Date:- 19.5.2025 Siddhant

¶25

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mukesh Kesari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kesari 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases