RAVI KUMAR KAUSHAL v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME AND ANOTHER
ABAIL/429/2025 · 2025-04-21
Manish Mathur
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 135161 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 135161 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22250 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 429 of 2025 Applicant :- Ravi Kumar Kaushal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Naveen Kumar Pandey,Shivam Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State. In view of
order being passed, notice to opposite party no.2 stands dispensed with. 2. This first anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 0368 of 2022 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda. 3. As per contents of First Information Report, the applicant alongwith co-accused is instrumental in preparation of a forged Domicile Certificate of one Lokai for purposes of executing a sale deed of Gata No. 334 which allegedly belongs to the grand- father of opposite party no.2. 4. It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that even otherwise an unnecessary criminal colour is being sought to be given to a purely civil dispute. Considering the fact that civil litigation has already pending between the parties. It is submitted that the aspect of forgery of the alleged domicile certificate is yet to be established in civil proceedings. It is also submitted that applicant has co-operated during the course of investigation whereafter charge-sheet was filed. His previous criminal history of one case has already been explained in the affidavit. 5. Learned AGA has opposed anticipatory bail application with the submission that applicant allegedly is instrumental in preparation of a forged domicile certificate for purposes of execution of a fabricated sale deed. He, however, admitted that the previous criminal history of applicant has been explained and that there is nothing adverse to indicate that applicant had
not co-operated during the course of investigation. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, it appears that primary gist of allegations has been levelled against one Lokai who allegedly submitted a forged domicile certificate. Applicant is shown who have helped in the preparation of the said alleged certificate. It is admitted that applicant's previous criminal history has been explained and that he co-operated during the course of investigation. Thus, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 BNNS. 7.
In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant Ravi Kumar Kaushal shall be released on anticipatory bail in aforesaid Case Crime number on his/her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) 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 tamper with the evidence; (ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail; Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.
8. It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in
forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. 9.The application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench