Partly allowed

Ajay Pratap Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2021ABAIL/8495/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of an anticipatory bail application filed by four accused persons. It rejected the prayer for applicant No. 1, the proprietor of the involved firm, but granted relief to the other three applicants who have no concern with the firm and no criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to applicants 2, 3, and 4 till the submission of police report, conditioned upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties and complying with standard conditions. P

Ajay Pratap Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8495 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ajay Pratap Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Satish Kumar Singh, learned brief holder appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Ajay Pratap Singh, Deependra Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Shailendra, seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Case Crime No. 0335 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 406, 120B I.P.C., Police Station- Saurikh, District Kannauj during the pendency of trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants states that the prayer in the present anticipatory bail application be confined only during the pendency of investigation/submission of police report and he presses the same only.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicant no. 1 Ajay Pratap Singh is proprietor of Shree Kunj Vihari Enterprises whereas the applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4 namely Deependra Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Shailendra have no concern with the said firm. It is argued that the dispute as alleged is between Shree Kunj Vihari Enterprises and the first informant with whom financial transactions are alleged to have been taken place. It is argued that except for the applicant no. 1, the other applicants are in no manner connected with the business which is being carried on by the applicant no. 1. Learned counsel has further argued that the co-accused Virpal, Choti Beti, Varsha Devi and Jyoti have been granted interim anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order 6.4.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 7278 of 2021, copy of which has been produced before the Court, which is taken on record. It is argued that as such the applicants are also entitled to grant relief in their favour as the dispute relates to financial transactions. It is argued that the applicant no. 1 has criminal history of one case being Case Crime No. 0254 of 2019, under

¶9

Sections 397, 395 I.P.C., P.S.- Kishni, District- Mainpuri but the applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4 namely Deependra Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Shailendra respectively, have no criminal history as stated in para-34 of the affidavit.

¶10

Learned State counsel opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and argued that the applicants are named in the F.I.R. and there are allegations against them.

¶11

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that baring the applicant no. 1 Ajay Pratap Singh who is owner of Shree Kunj Vihari Enterprises, the other applicants have no concern whatsoever with the said firm. The present anticipatory bail application in so far as the applicant no. 1/Ajay Pratap Singh is concerned, is rejected.

¶12

In so far as the applicant nos. 2/Deependra Singh, 3/Kuldeep Singh and 4/Shailendra are concerned, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation and the fact that they have no criminal antecedents and have no concern whatsoever with the said firm, they are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicants nos. 2/Deependra Singh, 3/Kuldeep Singh and 4/Shailendra, involved in Case Crime No. 0335 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 406, 120B I.P.C., Police Station- Saurikh, District Kannauj, they 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 their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- 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:-

¶14

(i) the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police office as and when required;

¶15

(ii) 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;

¶16

(iii) the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶17

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of

¶18

anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶19

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicants.

¶20

The applicants are directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶21

The present anticipatory bail application is disposed of.

¶22

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 1.12.2021 Naresh

Ajay Pratap Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Pratap Singh and 3 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subham Vs State of U.P.

Mintoo Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikrant Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Kusuma Vs State of U.P.

Brij Bihari Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others