Allowed

Vijendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Oct 2023ABAIL/11200/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail filed by Vijendra Singh in a case involving cheating and copyright infringement. The court held that the applicant had cooperated during investigation, no arrest warrant was issued, and the case was fit for anticipatory bail until the conclusion of the trial.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties.

Vijendra Singh Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:206661

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11200 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vijendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lalit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant - Vijendra Singh in connection with Case Crime No. 84 of 2020, under section 420 IPC and Section 63/65 Copy Right Act, P.S.Tajganj, District- Agra.

¶8

The FIR was instituted against several persons of having misused the copyrights of Panchhi Foods Private Limited and thereby caused pecuniary loss in the business of the informant.

¶9

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. After investigation charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. Applicant has no criminal history to his credit. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. It is also submitted that no process under Sections 82/83 CrPC has been issued against the applicant and he has been cooperative during investigation. It is lastly submitted that the alleged offences are punishable with the imprisonment for a maximum period of seven years.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶11

In this matter, as is evident from the record, offences levelled against the applicants are of Section 420 IPC and Section 63/65 Copy Right Act which are punishable with the imprisonment upto seven years. It reveals from the perusal of the record that no process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the

¶12

applicant till date and he has cooperated during the investigation.

¶13

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

Hence, 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 conclusion of trial in the matter.

¶17

The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicant 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 Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶19

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 or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution

¶21

witness.

¶22

iii. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶23

iv. The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

¶25

Order Date :- 30.10.2023 safi

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijendra 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

Mohammad Khalid Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chetan Pandey (Minor) Vs State of U.P.

Hemendra @ Harvindra Vs State of U.P.

Karam Chandra Pandey @ K.C. Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another

Govind Prasad Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Inam Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another