Dismissed

Smt. Neeraj Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2019BAIL/35219/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Smt. Neeraj Singh in a case under Section 409 IPC. The court held that the applicant, an elected representative entrusted with public funds, deliberately concealed her criminal antecedents by submitting false statements under oath regarding her clean record, thereby forfeiting the ground for bail.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Neeraj Singh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35219 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Neeraj Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alok Singh Chauhan

¶4

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Alok Singh Chauhan, who has appeared in opposition of the Bail Application as well as Vikas Sahai, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 49 of 2019, under Section 409 I.P.C., Police Station Raja Ka Rampur, District- Etah with the prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.

¶7

On 25 November 2019, the Court had passed the following order:

¶8

"None appears on behalf of applicant. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. are present.

¶9

Shri Alok Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant has pointed out that the applicant has criminal antecedents in the background and is in habit of committing such offences and even earlier with similar allegations she had been charge-sheeted and the averments made on behalf of applicant in paragraph -20 of the affidavit filed in support of anticipatory bail application that she is not having any criminal history at all and has been implicated for the first time is a false statement on oath and she does not deserve any relief therefore. Suitable action also ought to be initiated for making a false statement on oath in the court on behalf of applicant. It was also pointed out that as the aforesaid fact was informed to the court earlier on 17.10.2019 the Court was pleased not to extend the interim stay order. Submission is that deliberately the appearance is being avoided from the applicant's side and even though the complainant's counsel had intimated the applicant's counsel that the mater shall be taken up, even then he has not appeared in the court in order to delay the hearing.

¶10

As has been specifically requested by the counsel, list on 04.12.2019.

¶11

The applicant's counsel is required to ensure his appearance in the court on the next date fixed, otherwise the Court may feel constrained to proceed in the matter in his absence on the basis of record and no adjournment shall granted in the matter."

¶12

When the matter is taken up today, no plausible explanation has been proffered for the deliberate concealment of material facts. The applicant happens to be an elected representative who was entrusted with public moneys. Since there has been a deliberate concealment, the Court finds no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶13

The Bail Application is consequently rejected .

¶14

Order Date :- 4.12.2019 Arun K. Singh

¶15

(Yashwant Varma, J.)

Smt. Neeraj Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Neeraj Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Akash @ Samrat Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Prem Pal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Babu Ram Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sarita Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another