Allowed

Kamal Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2022ABAIL/1747/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of an anticipatory bail application filed by Kamal Pratap Singh. Finding his role less significant than co-accused company owners who received bail, the Court released him on bond amount upon arrest pending the police report, with conditions regarding investigation assistance and non-interference.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted upon arrest on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, subject to standard conditions.

Kamal Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1747 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kamal Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Perdeep Kumar Vishnoi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

It is informed by learned A.G.A. that instructions in this case has been procured along with complete case diary of the case. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicants could be finally disposed of.

¶6

Heard Shri P.K. Vishnoi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application has been moved by the accusedapplicant- Kamal Pratap Singh, in Case Crime No.0351 of 2021, under Sections 420, 406, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Mundhapandey, District Moradabad, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not been committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶9

It is further submitted that the allegations in the F.I.R. are to the tune that the informant had forwarded 1883 quintal of rice along with packing material to the firm of co-accused Pushpendra Munjal and Narendra Malik, who are owners of the Eco Roots Foods India Pvt. Ltd., however, out of 1883 quintal of rice, only 1199 quintal of rice was packed and loaded in the containers and forwarded to the port for the purpose of export and remaining 684 quintal of rice, which is of the value of 39/40 lakh along with packing material of the value of Rs.5 lakh was neither packed nor returned to the informant and thus the accused persons including the instant applicant with common intention has defrauded the informant.

¶10

Highlighting the above facts, it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is only a Manager in the Company and was obliged only to follow the administrative

¶11

directions/instructions of his superiors and therefore, he was not involved in policy making decisions. It is further submitted that even if the case of the prosecution as is evident from the F.I.R. is taken on its face, the owners of the company were the coaccused persons namely Pushpendra Munjal and Narendra Malik and they are responsible for any dispute or liability.

¶12

It is next submitted that the co-accused namely Pushpendra Munjal has been granted facility of protection from arrest till the submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. vide order dated 09.03.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.1763 of 2022 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, while the role of the instant applicant is much lessor than the role of the co-accused Pushpendra Munjal and he be also granted facility of protection from arrest. The applicant shall abide by any condition/restriction, which may be imposed by this Court as well as by the trial court and will cooperate in the investigation.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that having regard to the nature of offence committed by the instant applicant, he is not entitled for any protection.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is transpired that the dispute pertaining to the terms of a contract is between the informant and accused persons namely Pushpendra Munjal and Narendra Malik, who are stated to be the owners of the Eco Roots Foods India Pvt. Ltd., to whom the rice along with packing material were given by informant. The applicant is stated to be only a Manager and according to learned counsel for the applicant, he was following the directions of his superiors and was not concerned with any decision making process. At this stage of the case, as is evident from the F.I.R., the role of the instant applicant appears to be much lessor than the role of the co-accused person namely Pushpendra Munjal, who has been granted protection from arrest till the submission of the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by a Coordinate Bench of this Court.

¶15

Thus having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is finally disposed of in terms that in the event of arrest of the applicant- Kamal Pratap Singh , involved in aforesaid case crime number 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 his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties (one of the sureties will be of family members) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

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

¶17

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office;

¶18

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶19

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

¶20

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 applicant.

¶21

The applicant is 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.

¶22

Order Date :- 26.4.2022 Anupam S/-

¶23

Digitally signed by ANUPAM SINGH PATEL Date: 2022.04.26 17:51:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kamal Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

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

Rajat Paswan Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Adesh Vs State of U.P.

Tarik Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Nazma Vs State of U.P.

Chameli Vs State of U.P.