Allowed

Anamika Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2023ABAIL/11719/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Anamika Singh in a cheating and forgery case. The court observed that the informant appeared inimical to the applicant and relied on the Sushila Aggarwal precedent before granting bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till trial conclusion on furnishing personal bond with two sureties subject to standard enforcement conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:219293

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11719 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Anamika Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suraj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Suraj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Yogesh Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 46 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, Police StationSindhaura, District- Varanasi with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant was appointed as Class-IV employee in the Institution on compassionate grounds. The applicant is stated to have filed a forged C.C.C. certificate thereby to seek promotion from the said post. The said C.C.C. certificate on verification was found forged, as such the F.I.R. was instituted against the applicant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the informant, who happens to be the Principal of the Institute, is inimical to the applicant and has got lodged the present F.I.R. Even the inquiry report does not indicate any complicity of the applicant, although the applicant was not promoted. Learned counsel further stated that the appellate authority/D.I.O.S. vide order dated 12.12.2022 had recommended the applicant and had found the allegations false besides giving a finding that the informant seems inimical to the applicant. Learned counsel next stated that the animosity of the informant is but evident from the fact that against the stay order of the D.I.O.S. concerned, the informant has filed a revision before the Court, which is still pending.

¶11

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made

¶12

against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and she is also a pregnant lady. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, she will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶13

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶14

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98" , the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶15

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.

¶16

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Anamika Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶17

i. that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶18

ii. that 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;

¶19

iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶20

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶21

v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶22

vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each

¶23

date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶25

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶26

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶27

Order Date :- 17.11.2023 Saif

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anamika Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anamika 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

Smt. Bharti Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhartendu Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Mamta Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Prabha Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others