Allowed

Naval Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2021ABAIL/1589/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to three applicants accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust arising from a dispute over agreement to sell and specific performance. The court emphasized that arrest must be the last option and granted bail subject to personal bond, non-fleeing, and prohibition on tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on anticipatory bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each, subject to specific conditions regarding passport surrender and attendance in court.

Naval Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1589 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Naval Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahesh Kumar Kuntal

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants; Shri Mahesh Kumar Kuntal, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA.

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants,Naval Singh, Mahipal Singh, Harveer Singh, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 560 of 2020, under Sections 406,420 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Mathura, during pendency of trial.

¶7

Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

¶8

There is dispute between the parties regarding non-execution of sale deed despite entering into agreement to sale and taking money by the applicants from the informant.Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that other side has instituted the suit for specific performance of contract.The suit is within time. During the pendency of the suit informant lodged the First Information Report to make pressure upon the applicants to compromise with them. Applicants have definite apprehension of their arrest by the police.

¶9

Learned AGA and learned counsel for the

¶10

informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants. They have submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants, they are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicants is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶11

After considering the rival submissions this court finds that there is a case registered against the applicant. It cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend him. After the lodging of FIR the arrest can be made by the police at will. There is no definite period fixed for the police to arrest an accused against whom an FIR has been lodged. The courts have repeatedly held that arrest should be the last option for the police and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative or his custodial interrogation is required. Irrational and indiscriminate arrests are gross violation of human rights. In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 1349 the Apex Court has referred to the third report of National Police Commission wherein it is mentioned that arrests by the police in India is one of the chief source of corruption in the police. The report suggested that, by and large, nearly 60 percent of the arrests were either unnecessary or unjustified and that such unjustified police action accounted for 43.2 percent of expenditure of the jails. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental rights and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative. According to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the peculiar case the arrest of an accused should be made.

¶12

Hence in case of his arrest the applicant is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and his antecedents as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and order dated 22.05.2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.2609 of 2020. The future

¶13

contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶14

Let the applicants involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

The applicants shall not leave India during the pendency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶16

The applicant shall surrender their passports, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Their passports will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.

¶17

That the applicants 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;

¶18

The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶19

In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail, the trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶20

The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and

¶21

proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 8.2.2021

¶25

Atul kr. sri.

Naval Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naval Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Shareef Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyapal Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sushma Jindal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Manish Kumar Rastogi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Pratap and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish @ Bablu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another