Allowed

Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2023ABAIL/12531/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Court No. 85 allowed an anticipatory bail application under S. 438 Cr.P.C. filed by Pratap Singh against allegations of cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. The court held that a case for bail was made out after evaluating the nature of accusation, antecedents, and the applicant's specific role.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to Pratap Singh on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and compliance with specified conditions including appearance in court and non-interference with evidence or w

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

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12531 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashutosh Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Singh holding brief of Sri Ashutosh Tiwari, learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- Pratap Singh with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.60 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 504 I.P.C., P.S. Bahjoi, District Sambhal.

¶7

As per prosecution case, one Amit Kumar, his father Pratap Singh, his mother Vimla Devi and other members of the family of Amit Kuamr, who were well known to the first informant, falsely assured the first informant to earn good money in case he participates in his medicine company. For that purpose Rs. 50 lac has been invested by the first informant. After sometime co-accused Amit Kumar handed over him Rs.35 lac by five cheques which were dishonoured.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that whatever the business deal was, it was entered between co-accused Amit Kumar and first informant; the present applicant Pratap Singh and other family members of his family i.e. wife, sons and their wives etc. have been deliberately entangled in this matter just to put undue pressure on them with ulterior motive. If the F.I.R. is perused it becomes quite apparent that the all the allegations have been imputed against co-accused Amit Kumar. There is no specific allegations of passing on any assurance by the present applicant or give and take of money, therefore, liberty of applicant deserves to be protected by grant of anticipatory bail

¶9

Application for anticipatory bail is opposed with vehemence by learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. pressing before me that assurance to participate in the business venture for the purpose of earning money was given by the present applicant too who happens to be father of the co-accused.

¶10

In case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶11

In the instant case, I considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending

¶12

facts and circumstances of the case and also went through the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the basis whereof this criminal case has been registered, in my view, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Pratap Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each of the same amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the conditions as below:-

¶14

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

¶15

(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;

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

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

¶21

10. 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 at any stage of the case based on material before him.

¶22

Order Date :- 23.1.2023

¶23

Asha

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratap 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

Shamim Khan Vs State of U.P and Another

Sanjeev Gautam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rahis Mohammad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Imran Vs State of U.P.

Danish Vs State of U.P.

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