Disposed¶15

Sarvesh @ Tillu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2020ABAIL/4639/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail S.438 Cr.P.C. refused; 45-day surrender direction with no coercive action in the interim; relied on Amrawati (2004 (57) ALR 290) and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)); Ss.420/406/506/120-B IPC; Case Crime No.151 of 2019; P.S. Phase-2, NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar; applicant's criminal history of 7 cases urged by informant; application finally disposed of on 18.11.2020 by Siddharth, J.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail refused; applicant directed to appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days and apply for regular bail, to be considered as per Amrawati (2004 (57) ALR 290) and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)); no coercive action till then, coercive action if he fails to appear, and no further time for surrender. ¶15

Sarvesh @ Tillu Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2020)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Sarvesh @ Tillu is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in Case Crime No. 151 of 2019 (Sections 420, 406, 506, 120-B IPC, P.S. Phase-2, NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar) during pendency of trial.

¶6

Court's answer

After considering the rival submissions, the court found that the applicant is not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The offences alleged are prima facie made out from the allegations in the FIR.

¶9

Key takeaways

The applicant is directed to appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days and apply for bail; his prayer for bail shall then be considered and decided as per the settled law in Amrawati (2004 (57) ALR 290) and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)).ratio¶10
Till the applicant surrenders as directed, no coercive action shall be taken against him; if he does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.ratio¶12
The applicant will not be granted any further time by this court for surrendering before the court below as directed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by Sarvesh @ Tillu in Case Crime No. 151 of 2019, under Sections 420, 406, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station Phase-2, NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar. Co-accused persons had been granted anticipatory bail and bail by the court below; the informant opposed, citing the applicant's criminal history of 7 cases. The court held that the offences alleged are prima facie made out from the allegations in the FIR and that the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail. However, the applicant was directed to appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days and apply for bail, his prayer to be considered and decided as per the settled law in Amrawati and another v. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 290, and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). Till then no coercive action was to be taken; failure to appear within the period would invite coercive action, and no further time would be granted for surrender. Application finally disposed of (Siddharth, J., order dated 18.11.2020).

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4639 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sarvesh @ Tillu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hemendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anuj Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant through video conferencing, Sri Anuj Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Sarvesh @ Tillu, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 151 of 2019, under Sections- 420, 406, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Phase-2, NOIDA, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, during pendency of trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that all the co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail and bail by the court below. The applicant is also entitled for bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer of applicant for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that applicant has criminal history of 7 cases to his credit. The other co-accused persons were not having such a long criminal history.

¶9

After considering the rival submissions this court finds that the applicant is not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail. The offences alleged are prima facie made out from the allegations in the FIR.

¶10

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 45 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as per the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra

¶11

Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶12

Till then no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶13

However, in case, the applicant does not appears before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶14

It is made clear that the applicant will not be granted any further time by this court for surrendering before the court below as directed above.

¶15

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 18.11.2020 Ruchi Agrahari

Sarvesh @ Tillu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh @ Tillu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brajesh Rajpoot Vs State of U.P.

Salman Vs State of U.P.

Sarfaraj @ Peer Vs State of U.P.

Vipul Dubey Vs State of U.P.

Nakul Vs State of U.P.

Salman Qadeer Vs State of U.P.