Allowed

Lalta Prasad Panday v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2022/1794/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant (Lalta Prasad Panday) in the case of cheating and forgery under S. 409 IPC, recognizing he was on leave during the incident. Liberty is protected pending the filing of the police report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted contingent on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and complying with conditions regarding interrogation, witness integrity, and travel permissions.

Lalta Prasad Panday Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1794 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Lalta Prasad Panday Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Shailender Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shailender Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arvind Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶6

By means of present anticipatory bail application, the applicant has shown his apprehension of arrest in Case Crime No. 557 of 2012 u/s 409 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence alleged in the F.I.R.

¶7

The attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. wherein the allegation has been leveled against three accused persons including the present applicant to the effect that one rifle A.K. 47 with four magazine was found missing on the evening of 10.8.2012 from the Armory in question. Learned counsel has submitted that the present applicant was serving on the post of Const. Armorer. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure no. 2 which is an instruction report of such Armory from 8.8.2012 to 10.8.2012. The present applicant was on duty on 8.8.2012 and 9.8.2012 and on those dates everything was found proper but at the evening of 10.8.2012 such weapon and magazine were found missing. The present applicant was not on duty on 10.8.2022, however, one coaccused Head Constable Armorer Virendra Bahadur Singh was on duty. Attention has been drawn towards order dated 26.9.2022 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1531 of 2022 granting anticipatory bail to co-accused Virendra Bahadur Singh.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the departmental inquiry the present applicant has been punished with punishment of withholding three increments. He has further submitted that investigation is going on and the applicant is willing to participate, therefore, his liberty may be protected till completion of investigation and filing of police report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the applicant but could not dispute the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Without entering into the merits of the issue and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the other material available on record particularly the fact that on the date of incident the present applicant was on leave, he has been punished departmentally, one co-accused Virendra Bahadur Singh has been granted anticipatory bail, the fact that the investigation is going on and the undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate with the investigation, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the liberty of the applicant may be protected till filing of police report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶11

It is needless to say that the applicant shall cooperate with the investigation properly, failing which the protection being given by this order may not be available to him any further.

¶12

Therefore, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/ court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶14

that 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶15

that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶16

that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant;

¶17

that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶18

Applicant is directed to appear before the investigating officer on 28.10.2022 at 11.00 A.M. sharp to participate in the investigation failing which the benefit of this order

¶19

shall not be provided to the applicant and it would be open for the Investigating Officer to take appropriate steps against the present applicant strictly in accordance with law.

¶20

Before parting with it is expected that the pending investigation may be conducted and concluded with expedition in accordance with law.

¶21

In view of above, the present anticipatory bail application is disposed of .

¶22

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶23

Order Date :- 21.10.2022 Om

¶24

Digitally signed by OM PRAKASH MISHRA Date: 2022.10.22 15:49:00 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lalta Prasad Panday v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalta Prasad Panday v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

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

Satjinder Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Anshuman Mishra Vs State of U.P.Thru C.B.I. Anti Corruption Lko.

Smt. Kamla Vs State of U.P. Thru. S.P./C.B.I. Hazratganj Lucknow

Chandra Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Ibrar Alias Abrar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lucknow and Another

Kayyum Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.