Allowed

Brijesh Kumar Shahi @ Brijesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Oct 2023ABAIL/11348/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application in a chargesheeted case involving cheating and criminal conspiracy. The court granted bail until the conclusion of the trial, fixing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and imposing standard conditions regarding appearance and foreign travel.

What did the court decide?

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

Brijesh Kumar Shahi @ Brijesh Kumar Singh Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:204382

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11348 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Shahi @ Brijesh Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Bhushan Nath Tripathi 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 and perused the material available on record.

¶7

Apprehending his arrest, the present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Brijesh Kumar Shahi @ Brijesh Kumar Singh in Criminal Case No. 39603 of 2023 (State Vs. Ravi Prakash Tripathi and others) arising out of Case Crime No.185 of 2022, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 IPC, Police Station Chiluwatal, District Gorakhpur, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

Some construction work was performed by the informant after purchase of land from the main accused Ravi Prakash Tripathi, but however he could not take complete possession over the plot because the named accused persons including the present applicant started creating hindrance in the further construction. F.I.R. was lodged on 3.6.2022 and now charge-sheet has been submitted in this case.

¶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. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. It is further submitted that as per the prosecution story, the plot was sold to the informant by the main accused Ravi Prakash Tripathi and the applicant has absolutely no role in the aforesaid transaction. It is further submitted that the applicant is engaged in the work of plotting over the vacant land, but he has no concern with the land of the informant and he never prevented or caused any hindrance in the peaceful possession of the informant

¶10

over his plot. It is further submitted that admittedly a civil suit is already pending between the parties before the competent civil court. It is further submitted that during investigation, the applicant has been cooperative and now he is entitled for anticipatory bail till the end of trial.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it has been submitted that ample evidence has been collected during investigation that the informant / aggrieved person was not provided complete possession over the land, which was purchased by him from co-accused Ravi Prakash Tripathi, but however he was proposed to give possession over some other land. It is further submitted that the applicant is playing the main role in the commission of the offence as the informant so far has not succeeded to take complete and peaceful possession of the plot, which was purchased by him after the payment of consideration amount.

¶12

The applicant is neither the vendor nor the vendee of the sale deed, which was executed in favour of the informant. No consideration amount has been received by the applicant. Civil suit is already pending between the parties. Applicant has been cooperative during the course of investigation and the criminal history of the applicant has been sufficiently explained.

¶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 end of the trial in the matter.

¶17

9. 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 end of the trial 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 make himself available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter;

¶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 officer;

¶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, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶23

Order Date :- 26.10.2023 ss

¶24

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

Brijesh Kumar Shahi @ Brijesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh Kumar Shahi @ Brijesh Kumar Singh 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

Shivchand Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Brijesh Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Prashant @ Titu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Suresh Chandra Jaiswal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another