The Allahabad High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by Sandeep Singh in a non-bailable case involving fabrication in revenue registers. The court held that the allegations are serious and it is not a fit case for bail.
Prayer for anticipatory bail is refused. The application is rejected.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:200729
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11115 of 2023
Applicant :- Sandeep Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
main accused Mohd. Ajmal Khan, the area Lekhpal, in collusion with the retired Registrar Murarilal made some fabrication in the relevant revenue registers and some new pages were pasted. An agreement to sale was executed by the present applicant in favour of Ravindra Chauhan and that page was also pasted in the fabricated pages. F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation in the year 2011 charge sheet has been submitted. From the perusal of the record it appears that at present though an order to issue nonbailable warrant is operative against the applicant, as per the copy of the order sheets submitted by the applicant, but since he has been summoned by the trial court in the year 2011 and he did not respond to the process issued by the Court to him, and as such, he was never cooperative in the trial.
It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.
It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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.
applicant, if moved, shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 .
Order Date :- 17.10.2023
safi
Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in the present case given the allegations of fabrication and the applicant's non-cooperation in the trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825Referred¶18
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sandeep Singh
State of U.P.
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
