Disposed

Akhil Bansal v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC2 Jan 2024ABA/1016/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application under Sections 409 and 420 IPC concerning an FIR against an educational institute whose chairman was charge-sheeted. The court granted anticipatory bail with a personal bond of Rs.30,000, two sureties and conditions including regular trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted: Rs.30,000 bond plus two sureties of like amount, with standard conditions.

Akhil Bansal Vs State of Uttarakhand — Cheating and Forgery | Uttarakhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 02^ND JANUARY, 2024

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1016 of 2023

¶4

Akhil Bansal ..…Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Uttarakhand. ..…Respondent

¶7

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate. (through video conferencing) Counsel for the State : Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, A.G.A.

¶8

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

¶9

Present Application has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of Anticipatory Bail under Section 420 & Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with the Case Crime No.55 of 2020 (Criminal Case No.253 of 2021), registered at police station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar.

¶10

2. Vide letter dated 17.04.2018 of the Home Department of the State of Uttarakhand, a Special Investigation Team was constituted. Sub-Inspector Rajendra Singh Kholiya was a member of the said Special Investigation Team. He enquired the matter and after enquiry, he lodged an FIR against Hannu Pvt. ITI on 03.02.2020. Upon conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present applicant and co-accused persons.

¶11

¶12

3 . Heard Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the applicant (through video conferencing) and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶13

4. Despite getting sufficient opportunity to file objection to the Anticipatory Bail Application, objection has not been filed by the State. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the Anticipatory Bail Application orally.

¶14

5 . Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate, contended through video conferencing that the said Institute is being run by the Trust, namely, “Hannu Educational & Social Welfare Trust”. The present applicant is the Chairman of the said Trust. The applicant, aged about 53 years, has been falsely implicated in the present matter. Scholarships of the concerned students were directly credited in the bank accounts of the students by the Social Welfare Officer, Haridwar through online transfer. Applicant did not receive any scholarship amount from any student. He was not a beneficiary. He is a permanent resident of District Saharanpur (Uttar Pradesh), therefore, there is no chance of his absconding. The present case rests on the documentary evidence and all the documentary evidence are in possession of the Investigating Officer. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation. Applicant is not a previous convict, and, he has been granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court.

¶15

¶16

6 . Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

¶17

7 . In the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant-Akhil Bansal is directed to be released on Anticipatory Bail, in the event of his arrest, on furnishing his personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount on the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) Applicant shall attend the Trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

¶19

(ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of this case;

¶20

(iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Trial Court.

¶21

8. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the concerned authority will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

¶22

9. Anticipatory Bail Application (No.1016 of 2023) stands disposed of accordingly.

¶23

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

¶24

Dt:02.01.2024 JKJ/Pant

Akhil Bansal v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhil Bansal 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

Devendra Pal Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Gopal Singh Panwar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mohd Faisal Vs Narcotics Control Bureau

Murad Ali Vs Smt. Farmeena

Subham Bhatt Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pradeep Gupta Vs State of Uttarakhand