Allowed

Himanshu Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC23 Nov 2022ABAIL/13145/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by Himanshu Singh in a case involving charges of theft, forgery, and illegal mining, noting that a case for bail was made out despite allegations of forged documents.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation and non-interference with witnesses.

Himanshu Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Mining and Natural Resources | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13145 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Himanshu Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.166 of 2021, under Sections 379, 411, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. and Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957 and Section 3 of Prevention of Public Property Damages Act, 1984, Police Station-Kabrai, District- Mahoba with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. According to prosecution version, on the night of 31.05.2021, a truck no. U.P. 91-T-5286 was apprehended by the Mining Officer and others and the said truck was carrying minerals (Gitti) and the papers of royalty and crusher bill, shown by driver, were found forged. Learned counsel submitted that mere allegation against applicant is that driver of said truck has stated that said documents were given by applicant at instance of owner of vehicle. Except the said statement of driver of the said truck, there is no other evidence against applicant. Learned counsel submitted that applicant was not involved in any illegal mining and he has no concern with the alleged incident. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was

¶8

submitted that no case is made out against applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail .

¶10

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶11

In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶12

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Himanshu Singh in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his 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/Court below concerned with the following conditions :-

¶14

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

¶15

(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 him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶16

(iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 23.11.2022 Neeraj

¶19

Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.11.24 15:52:57 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Himanshu Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshu Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Raj Kumar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sajan Kumar Bind Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajeev and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Purnima Keshari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Danish Vs State of U.P.