Allowed

Gagandeep Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Jun 2020ABAIL/1743/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In chamber order granting anticipatory bail to the applicant on limited period. Court dispensed with State objection on notice basis following Supreme Court precedent. Bail granted subject to bonded sureties and standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties and compliance of conditions.

Gagandeep Singh Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1743 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Gagandeep Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Bhaskar Srivastava,Dhiraj Singh,Kartikeya Saran Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ishwar Chandra Tyagi,Nirvikar Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

This bail application is being disposed of as per the order dated 4.4.2020 of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

¶6

Notice of this application was served on the Government Advocate on 7.2.2020 but as yet no objection has been filed on behalf of the State.Notice on Government Advocate is sufficient as per section 438(3) Cr.P.c. (U.P. Amendment).Hence this application is being finally decided.

¶7

Counter affidavit filed Shri Nirvikar Gupta and Shri I,C.Tyagi, learned counsels for the informant is on record.

¶8

Rejoinder affidavit filed by Shri Dhiraj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant is also on record.

¶9

The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Gagandeep Singh , in Case Crime No. 0238 of 2019, under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C. , Police Station - Badalpur, District - Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶10

The applicant claims that he is nephew of coaccused, Tejender Singh, who is a developer.His uncle entered into an agreement to develop and sell plots with informant.He developed and sold number of properties as per agreement.Thereafter some property was sold on oral instructions and money was transferred to informant but he has falsely implicated Tejender Singh and also applicant along with him.It has been averred in the affidavit in support of this application that there is dispute regarding accounting of money. It requires

¶11

filing of suit for settlement of liabilities of the parties against each other.The applicant and coaccused persons have been falsely implicated in this case.Applicant has averred that he has been falsely implicated in this case on account of rivalry between co-accused, Tejender Singh and informant, Purshotam Das Agarwal.He has no criminal history to his credit and has definite apprehension of his arrest by the police.

¶12

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of informant details of transactions between Tejender Singh and informant have been mentioned.Number of factual averments have been made in the counter affidavit regarding transactions made between the parties. The facts stated cannot ascertained at this stage. Plaint of the suit filed between the parties have also been brought on record.

¶13

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and his antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case for the limited period considering the exception considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC Online SC 98 .

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;

¶16

(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office;

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the

¶18

previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶19

(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶20

(v) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶21

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶22

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law, expeditiously, independently without being prejudiced by any observations made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶23

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶24

Order Date :- 5.6.2020 Atul kr. sri.

Gagandeep Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gagandeep Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harish Vs State of U.P.

Qadir Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Kavita Devi Vs State of Up

Alok Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

Sultan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P.