Allowed

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

Allahabad HC12 Oct 2023ABAIL/11263/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Court granted bail to the applicant sought apprehending arrest in a cheating case. The Court held it was a fit case, emphasizing cooperation with investigation and lack of incriminating evidence.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted until filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., upon execution of personal bond with two sureties.

Bhanu Pratap Singh Gangwar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:198158

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11263 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Bhanu Pratap Singh Gangwar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh,Shesh Narain Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State perused the record.

¶7

Apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.54 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Sector-58, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, the applicant - Bhanu Pratap Singh Gangwar has filed this anticipatory bail application seeking anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime number.

¶8

Named accused persons Pankaj and Adarsh had taken a huge amount of money from the informant on the false pretext of providing admission in M.B.B.S. course in Govt. College, Banda, but the informant did not get the admission. F.I.R. was lodged on 9.2.2021 and investigation started, which is going on.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. He has been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on into the matter. It is further submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. No money was handed over to him in cash or through electronic transaction by the informant or any other person. When co-accused persons of this case were arrested by the police, name of the present applicant came to surface. Incriminating articles relating to this case have been recovered from pointing out of co-accused Vikram and Sunil and nothing has been recovered from the possession or place under the control of the applicant. Criminal antecedents of the applicant have been sufficiently explained. He is cooperating with the investigation of the case. It is further submitted that the applicant is engaged in

¶10

mineral water business and he has absolutely no concern with the alleged fraud committed by other co-accused persons. It is further submitted that the applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation. It is further submitted that no custodial interrogation is required in this matter from the applicant and as such, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, but however could not dispute this fact that criminal history of the applicant has been sufficiently explained and he is cooperating with the investigation of the case.

¶12

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.

¶13

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 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.

¶14

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

¶15

to the applicant till the filing of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶16

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶17

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:-

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 12.10.2023 ss

¶23

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanu Pratap Singh Gangwar 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

Shamshul Hak Rain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ansar Hussain Vs State of U.P.

Ajeet 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

Vikash Vs State of U.P.