Disposed

Phool Singh and 2 Other v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Apr 2022ABAIL/2629/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application filed by the accused apprehending arrest in a cheating and criminal intimidation case, the court observed that no police notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. had been issued. Since arrest was not pending, the court disposed of the application but directed the investigating officer to comply with Section 41A and the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar if the case wa

What did the court decide?

Disposed of with direction to the investigating officer to comply with Section 41A of Cr.P.C. and Arnesh Kumar judgment if arrest becomes necessary.

Phool Singh and 2 Other 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. - 2629 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Phool Singh And 2 Other Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been moved by the accused/applicants - Phool Singh, Rishipal and Neetu @ Narendra Kumar in Case Crime No.578 of 2021, under Sections 420, 506 I.P.C, Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur, with the prayer to grant them anticipatory bail as they are apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

¶7

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

¶8

It is further submitted that the alleged offences against the applicants are punishable with upto 7 years imprisonment, but the investigating officer is making all out efforts to arrest/apprehend the applicants without complying the mandatory provisions as contained in Section 41A of Cr.P.C. and also the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as enunciated in Arnesh Kumar v . State of Bihar , ( 2014 ) 8 SCC 273.

¶9

It is also submitted that the applicants are law abiding persons and the allegations of the F.I.R. are patently false. The applicants are ready to cooperate in the investigation as well as in the trial and there is no apprehension that after being provided the facility of anticipatory bail, the applicants may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty as also the custodial interrogation of the applicants is not warranted.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the alleged offences against the applicants are punishable with upto 7 years of imprisonment and as no notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. has been issued by the investigating officer, the applicants are

¶11

not having any apprehension of being arrested and therefore, instant anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the applicants have been alleged to have committed offences under Sections 420 and 506 I.P.C. Both these offences are punishable with upto 7 years of imprisonment. Learned counsel for the applicants very fairly admitted that still no notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. has been issued or received by the applicants.

¶13

Having regard to the admitted position that no notice as required under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. has been issued by the investigating officer, the instant anticipatory bail application is disposed of with direction to the investigating officer of the instant case that if the offences being investigated against the applicants are punishable with upto 7 years of imprisonment, the provisions as contained in Section 41A of Cr.P.C. as well as the law propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) shall be complied with in letter and spirit by investigating officer, without fail.

¶14

Order Date :- 6.4.2022 Anupam S/-

¶15

Digitally signed by ANUPAM SINGH PATEL Date: 2022.04.06 17:05:53 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Phool Singh and 2 Other v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phool Singh and 2 Other 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Binda Devi Vs State of U.P.

Satyabhama Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shamsher Ali Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Om Prakash @ Balla Pasi Vs State of U.P.

Vishnu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nadeem Vs State of U.P and Another