Allowed

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

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2022ABAIL/7019/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed anticipatory bail application for applicants facing charges for cheating and forgery. Applicants were to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and abide by conditions including cooperation with investigation and refraining from tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each, subject to conditions of availability for interrogation, no tampering with evidence, and cooperation durin

Raj Kumar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Money Laundering | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7019 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Raj Kumar Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, 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.0059 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Rohaniya, DistrictVaranasi with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Learned counsel submitted that only allegation against applicants is that they have told the informant that the dispute land was free from all encumbrances and the same belongs to co-accused Ram Aasrey and thereafter, the said land was purchased by informant and later on, it was reveled that the said land was already sold by co-accused Ram Aasrey to some other person. Learned counsel submitted that applicants are marginal witness on the sale-deed executed in favour of informant and except that they have no concern with the matter. The first information report of this case has been got lodged with long delay by moving an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that there is no credible evidence against applicant. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. The applicants

¶8

undertake to co-operate during investigation and trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they 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 applicants 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 applicants- Raj Kumar Singh and Ajay Kumar Shukla in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their 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 applicants shall make themselves available for

¶15

interrogation by the police as and when required;

¶16

(ii) the applicants 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;

¶17

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

¶18

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 applicants.

¶19

Order Date :- 22.11.2022 Neeraj

¶20

Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.11.22 15:48:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Singh and Another 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

Nisha Kant Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Md. Sajid Vs State of U.P.

Prince Kumar Vs State of U.P.

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

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

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.