Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 April, 2023
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4525 of 2023 Applicant :- Mahendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Dhiraj Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.79 of 2021, registered under Sections 120-B, 471, 468, 467, 420, 419 IPC at Police Station- Chetganj, District Varanasi with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the main accused person Vipin Kumar Sharma is stated to have obtained two degrees simultaneously in the year 2007. The applicant is stated to have issued a mark-sheet to him in the year 2007.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Much reliance has been placed on annexure no.3 to the affidavit filed with the bail application, which is a joining letter of the applicant at the university as Assistant Registrar. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant was not posted at the university at the time as he was posted at Jhansi University in the year 2007. The applicant had taken charge on 17.07.2008 as Assistant Registrar at the university, as such the said documents has been forged by the accused person Vipin Kumar Sharma himself. There was no possibility of applicant forging any documents in the year 2007 when he was not posted there. 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. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
7. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Mahendra Kumar be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(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 the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
9. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
(Krishan Pahal, J.) Order Date :- 24.4.2023 Ravi Kant