Allowed

Raj Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC9 Sept 2022ABA/132/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand allowed anticipatory bail for Raj Kumar, an applicant charged with forgery and cheating. The court held the case fit for bail, requiring the applicant to furnish a personal bond with two sureties and comply with conditions including cooperation with investigation and not approaching witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; applicant to furnish personal bond with two sureties and comply with conditions including cooperating with investigation, not approaching witnesses, and depositing passport.

Raj Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand — Cheating and Forgery | Uttarakhand HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Anticipatory Bail Application No. 132 of 2022

¶3

Raj Kumar ….....Applicant

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent

¶6

Present:-

¶7

Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate for the applicant.

¶8

Mr. V.K. Jemini, Deputy Advocate General with Ms. Meena Bisht, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, Advocate for the informant.

¶9

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶10

Applicant Raj Kumar has sought anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.300 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on anticipatory bail.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶12

According to the FIR, by forging the documents, the property of the informant was sold to the various persons including the applicant. The applicant has already constructed a house on it.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that based on the power of attorney co-accused Riyasat Ali executed a sale deed in favour of Om Prakash,

¶14

¶15

from that Om Prakash the wife of the informant purchased the property; the applicant was a Government servant.

¶16

These facts are admitted to the learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the informant.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that he constructed the house by taking loan from the bank.

¶18

Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶19

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶20

In the eventuality of arrest, the applicant shall be enlarged on interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/court concerned. In addition to it the applicant shall also comply with the following conditions:

¶21

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶22

¶23

(ii) The applicant shall not approach any witness/victim in any manner, whatsoever.

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the concerned court.

¶25

(iv) The applicant shall deposit his passport with the IO. The passport may only be returned by the order of the court concerned. In case the applicant does not have passport, he shall give an undertaking to that effect to the IO.

¶26

(v) The applicant shall also give an undertaking on (i), (ii) & (iii) above.

¶27

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 09.09.2022

¶28

Sanjay

Raj Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Sushil Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Naveen Vs State of Uttarakhand

Gaurav Rawat Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vijendra Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rohit Rautela Vs State of Uttarakhand

Riyasat Ali Vs State of Uttarakhand