This judgment grants anticipatory bail to an applicant facing charges of cheating and forgery. The court held that a case for bail is made out considering the lack of coercive processes and similar bail orders for co-accused.
Anticipatory bail granted on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5557 of 2022
Applicant :- Chandra Bhushan Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Adesh Kumar,Brijesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 383 of 2016, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali City, District Mirzapur with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
The FIR of this case was lodged against 207 persons including the applicant alleging that they have applied for recruitment of Assistant Teachers on the basis of fraudulent certificates and during selection process, their educational documents were found forged/tampered.
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. It has further been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. Learned counsel submitted that applicant has not joined the service on the basis of said certificates. Referring to the facts of matter, it was submitted that applicant has not committed any cheating or forgery and that no proper verification was made. Further
similarly placed co-accused persons, namely, Ashok Kumar, Ajay Dubey, Rinkoo Yadav, Kamlesh Kumari Patel @ Kamlesh Kumari and others have already been granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the copy of which, is available on record. It was also submitted that 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 will co-operate during investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail. However, it could not be disputed that similarly placed coaccused persons, namely, Ashok Kumar, Ajay Dubey, Rinkoo Yadav, Kamlesh Kumari Patel @ Kamlesh Kumari and others have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court.
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.
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.
The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
In the event of arrest of the applicant- Chandra Bhushan 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 :-
(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police as and when required;
(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;
(iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.
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.
Order Date :- 17.8.2022 M. Tarik
Digitally signed by MOHD TARIK Date: 2022.08.18 10:33:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a case for anticipatory bail is made out for the applicant under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC in the given circumstances.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶12
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 · Who else cites this
State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar and othersReferred¶9
Case Crime no. 383 of 2016
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Chandra Bhushan Singh
State Of U.P.
Raj Beer Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
