Allowed

Anil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Anotehr

Allahabad HC8 Nov 2023ABAIL/11797/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to Anil Kumar Singh in a cheating case involving false admission admissions. The applicant cooperated with the investigation. Bail was allowed until the filing of the police report under Section 173(2).

What did the court decide?

Granted bail on bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of appearance, non-interference, and deposit of passport.

Anil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:215743

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11797 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Anil Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anotehr Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh,Shesh Narain Mishra

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶7

Compliance affidavit filed today on behalf of the State is taken on record.

¶8

In compliance of the direction given by this Court on 7.11.2023, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Investigating Officer of the case is present before the Court.

¶9

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

¶10

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Anil Kumar Singh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.52 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Sector-58, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶11

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.

¶12

At the very outset it is informed that the matter has been converted into Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. wherein the maximum period of imprisonment has been provided for life and that is why no notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. was given to the accused applicant.

¶13

It has been submitted 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. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is further

¶14

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 coaccused 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 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. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶15

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.

¶16

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, llikelihood 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.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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 filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶20

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶21

In the event of arrest of the applicant, 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 Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶22

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

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant.

¶26

Order Date :- 8.11.2023 safi

¶27

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

Anil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Anotehr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Anotehr

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

Rajesh Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pappu @ Sukhram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajiv Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sharafat Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

A.K. Mehra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rama Shankar Vs State of U.P. and Another