Allowed

Brijnath Singh v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2022ABAIL/2349/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Brijnath Singh in a cheating case under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC. Bail was conditional upon deposit of security, surrender of passport, and execution of a bond to return misappropriated funds within a month or vacate bail automatically.

What did the court decide?

Release on anticipatory bail until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and other conditions.

Brijnath Singh Vs State of U.P.and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2349 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Brijnath Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Brijnath Singh with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 64 of 2022, under sections 420, 406 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Sarai Lakhansi, district-Mau.

¶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

The first information report was lodged by the informant against the present accused, alleging therein that an agreement has taken place between the applicant and the informant with the help of named coaccused Virendra Singh for the purchase of an agricultural land of applicant and it was agreed upon between applicant and the informant that the sale deed of the alleged property will be done immediately.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is ready to deposit Rs. five lac ( Rs. 5,00,000/-) in the trial court. Further submission is that the offences are triable by Magistrate and the maximum punishment is below seven years and if the applicant is released on bail, he will co-operate during investigation. The applicant is having definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶11

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and antecedent of the applicant, considering the gravity of the offence, considering 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 in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5191 of 2021.

¶12

In the event of arrest of the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., if any, before the competent court/S.H.O. concern on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the

¶13

satisfaction of the Station House Officer concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

The applicant shall not leave India during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court and co-operate during investigation.

¶15

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

¶16

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;

¶17

The applicant 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.

¶18

In case, the applicant 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.

¶19

The counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicant shall return Rs. five lac (Rs. 5,00,000/-), which he has taken from the informant within a month and if he does not return the said amount to the informant, the interim protection granted in this case shall stand automatically vacated.

¶20

Order Date :- 20.4.2022 Faridul

¶21

Digitally signed by FAREEDUL HASAN Date: 2022.04.27 12:04:27 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Brijnath Singh v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijnath Singh 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

Ankit @ Titke Vs State of U.P.

Sudhir Tiwari @ Sudhir Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Ishrat and 9 Others Vs State of Up and 2 Others

Jai Kishan Bharti Vs the State of U.P. and Another

Dan Sahay and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sardeep Vs State of U.P.