Allowed

Suraj Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2023ABAIL/10946/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case involving cheating and criminal conspiracy, directing him to furnish a bond and adhering to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to Suraj Singh till conclusion of trial upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and complying with specified conditions.

Suraj Singh Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:190181

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10946 of 2023 Applicant :- Suraj Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Damodar Singh,Devendra Vikram Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary corrections in the memo of prayer clause.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case No.45 of 2009, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B IPC, Police Station Shahpur, District Gorakhpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant. A registered sale deed has been executed by Hanuman Singh Baghel in favour of one Amrendra Kumar Pandey on 15.02.2000 in which the applicant was marginal witness. The said sale deed was never challenged before any court. He further submits that during investigation, nothing was found against the applicant, hence, final report was submitted against the applicant. Being aggrieved, the informant has filed protest petition, which was treated as complaint case and after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the applicant was summoned. He further submits that the applicant was not aware of the complaint proceeding and has never received any summon till date. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 26 of the affidavit.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶10

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC

¶11

98 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶12

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Suraj Singh, involved in the aforesaid complaint case be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

(i) 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.

¶14

(ii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶16

(iv) 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.

¶17

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the 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 .

¶18

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶19

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.

¶21

Order Date :- 4.10.2023/Ajeet

¶22

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suraj Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Singh 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

Ajay Thakur @ Ajay Singh Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saroj Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Vyash Kanhiya Chanchal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Umesh Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another