Allowed

Rajesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2023ABAIL/11995/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Miscellaneous Anticipatory Bail Application, the Allahabad High Court allowed the plea of Rajesh Kumar Singh. The court referred to the Sushila Aggarwal judgment and granted bail conditioned on furnishing a personal bond with sureties and complying with standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

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

Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:210019

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11995 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Ravi Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, 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. 202 of 2019, under Sections 420, 120-B, 201 of IPC and Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Harduaganj, District Aligarh, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, a raid was conducted at the fair price shop of coaccused Saddam Hussain and the stock register was not matched with the actual stock. It was found that 1.25 quintals of wheat and 4.27 quintals of rice was less and empty barrel of kerosene oil was also found there.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has apprehension of his arrest. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant owns a different fair price shop as the proprietor of the instant fair price shop is Saddam Hussain, who had gone out of station and he had handed it over to the applicant for the time being. The applicant has cooperated during investigation and is ready to cooperate in trial also. In the final report (charge-sheet), Sections 420, 120-B and 201 of IPC have been added.

¶11

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. 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. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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 .

¶15

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Rajesh Kumar 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

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;

¶18

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

¶19

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶23

Order Date :- 2.11.2023 Siddhant

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.

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

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Nihal Vs State of U.P.

Jagdish Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Mukul Vs State of U.P.

Wasim Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another