Allowed

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Oct 2023ABAIL/10227/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, Rajesh Kumar, who faced arrest in a case involving coercion and property fraud. The court held the dispute to be primarily civil in nature, with the applicant acting only as a witness. Bail was granted pending the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant granted anticipatory bail on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties until filing of police report.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:201043

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10227 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shesh Nath Bhatt

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

¶7

Apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.144 of 2023, under Sections 406, 323, 504, 506, 420, 467, 468, 471, 365, 120-B IPC, Police Station Lalganj, District Basti, the applicant - Rajesh Kumar has filed this anticipatory bail application seeking anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime number.

¶8

Prosecution story, as culled out in the F.I.R., is that by way of coercion and undue influence and keeping the informant under fear and threat, the accused persons named in the F.I.R. obtained a sale deed of his property in favour of the wife of co-accused Parmatama Chaudhary wherein the present applicant appeared as a witness and no consideration amount was given to the informant. F.I.R. was lodged on 25.5.2023 and investigation started, which is going on.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He has been falsely implicated in this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on into the matter. It is further submitted that the copy of the impugned sale deed is on record, a perusal of which shows that the consideration amount of Rs.1.5 lakh was paid to the informant before the Sub Registrar and it is totally wrong to say that the sale deed was executed without paying any consideration amount. Present dispute is purely of civil nature and no offence has been committed by the applicant. He is only a witness to the impugned sale deed and no consideration

¶10

amount has been received by him. Neither he is the vendor nor vendee in the impugned sale deed. It is further submitted that the applicant has been cooperative with the investigation so far. It is further submitted that no custodial interrogation is required in the matter. In case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it has been vehemently argued that the informant was bitterly assaulted by the applicant and other co-accused persons and he has sustained injuries as well. It is further submitted that no consideration amount was given to the informant.

¶12

In the present matter, from the perusal of the record, it appears that a Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.11885of 2023 was filed by the applicant and other co-accused persons wherein no interim relief was granted to them and same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 8.8.2023. It further reveals that applicant is a witness to the sale deed. Dispute appears to be of purely civil nature and as submitted by the learned counsel for the informant at Bar that a civil suit between the parties is already pending. Applicant is said to be cooperative with the investigation, which is going on.

¶13

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶14

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the

¶15

power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶16

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 of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the filing of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶17

10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the filing of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶23

Order Date :- 13.10.2023 ss

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar 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

Bhanu Pratap Singh Gangwar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mehadi Hasan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Km. Punki Vs State of U.P. and Another

Daljit Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Asif @ Mohd Aashif Vs State of U.P.

Shishupal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P.