Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2023ABAIL/11738/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejected the application filed by Bheekam Singh. The court held that it was not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail for offences involving cheating and forgery related to the alleged misidentification of a dead body and obtaining a false death certificate.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected as the applicant is not a fit case for grant of bail.

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

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11738 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Bheekam Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Singh,Ritesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ritesh Singh assisted by Sri Suresh Singh, learned counsels for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the papers on record.

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicantBheekam Singh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.660 of 2022, under sections- 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., Police Station- Roja, District- Shahjahanpur.

¶7

The prosecution story is that an unclaimed dead body was identified by the present applicant as one of his son Munesh Yadav; the last rites were performed by the present applicant and members of the family knowing that the dead body was not of Munesh Yadav; they obtained a false death certificate with the purpose to close criminal cases pending against him and also to get payment of life insurance policy; it is alleged in the F.I.R. that Munesh Yadav was found alive by the police authorities and this F.I.R. under sections- 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. was lodged against the present applicant and certain others who were found complicit in the alleged conspiracy.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that he had identified the dead body in a bona fide manner taking it as his own son and that he had no criminal intention in identifying the same; that two of the co-accused persons Smt. Sudha and Sangeeta @ Santosh have been granted benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders dated 30.11.2022 and 07.12.2022 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Applications No.11733 of 2022 and 12121 of 2022, respectively.

¶9

The application for anticipatory bail is opposed on behalf of the State pressing before me the fact that a conspiracy was hatched by the present applicant in association with other members of his family and was actually executed in a perfect manner; the purpose was to get the case filed against the alleged deceased disposed of on the basis of forged death certificate and

¶10

also to receive the payment of life insurance policy. It is said that allegations are quite serious in nature the applicant did not file any F.I.R. with the police had his son met untimely or unnatured death. There is no possibility of father mistaking a dead body of a stranger as of his son.

¶11

Prima facie, it does not appear that the F.I.R. has been lodged against him with the purpose of bringing disgrace or cause humiliation to him by having him arrested in a mala fide manner. It may also be kept in mind that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised in suitable cases only. The powers under section 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be utilized in a routine manner and definitely as a substitute for regular bail. This discretionary power calls for existence of facts of the kind where the court is satisfied that its interference is necessary to further the cause of justice and to prevent misuse of process of law.

¶12

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case to grant benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶13

Hence the anticipatory bail application is rejected .

¶14

However, any of the observations made herein shall not be taken as a comment on merits of the case and the court below shall be at liberty to form its own opinion at any stage of the case.

¶15

Order Date :- 24.1.2023 Saif

¶16

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bheekam 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Kamlesh Patel @ Kallu and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Sundar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chunnu @ Naseem Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manjesh Rai Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aasif @ Lalla Vs State of U.P. and Another