Allowed

Sanjay Singh and 16 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2023ABAIL/1296/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed the application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for thirteen accused facing charges under Sections 409 and 201 IPC. The interim order granted by a co-ordinate bench earlier that same day was confirmed to remain in absolute force until the submission of the police report under Section 173(3) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; interim anticipatory bail made absolute subject to standard conditions for bail and appearance before police.

Sanjay Singh and 16 Others Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1296 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjay Singh And 16 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Singh,Vijay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.140 of 2019, under Sections 409, 201 I.P.C., P.S. Gadwar, District-Ballia, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.

¶7

On 07.02.2020, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicants, has passed the following order:-

¶8

"Heard Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Shoeb Khan, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

This anticipatory bail application (u/s 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 140 of 2019, under sections 409 and 201 IPC, Police Station Gadwar, District Ballia during pendency of investigation.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants were initially appointed as tube-well operators, later they were promoted to the post of Gram Panchayat Secretary, thereafter, they had to be reverted back to the earlier post. After handing over the charge and delivering the record, accused applicants had joined earlier post of tube-well operators. False allegation has been made against the applicants that 137 files of the department were not handed over by the applicants, hence present case has been lodged against them. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that allegation is absolutely vague as no specific number of files has been attributed to a particular accused who has not returned the said record. Applicants have no criminal history. If released on anticipatory bail, he would cooperate with the investigation.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of grant of anticipatory bail but could not controvert the aforesaid fact.

¶12

Taking into consideration the gravity of accusation, there being no criminal antecedents of the applicants and there being no possibility of his fleeing from justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicants are entitled to be released on interim anticipatory bail in this case.

¶13

List this case on 20.03.2020 and by the said date, counter affidavit be filed from the side of learned A.G.A.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicants, Sanjay Singh, Chhotey Lal Yadav, Raj Nath Prasad, Narayan Singh, Jawahar Yadav, Rajendra Kumar Singh, Jay Narain Prajapati, Balmiki

¶15

Singh, Lal Bahadur Singh, Basant Kumar Singh, Rajaram, Kamla Prasad, Jailal Verma, Ashok Kumar Singh, Gyan Prakash Tripathi, Ramayan Yadav and Jugul Kishor involved in aforesaid case, they shall be released on interim anticipatory bail during investigation till the date fixed, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned on the on the following conditions:

¶16

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

¶17

2. that the applicants 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

3. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶19

4. that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants. "

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that till date no charge sheet has been submitted and investigation is still going on. He further submits that applicant has always co-operated in the investigation and has not misused the liberty of aforesaid interim anticipatory bail, which was granted to them on 07.02.2020 by co-ordinate bench of this Court. He further submits that applicants have no criminal history. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegation made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon length. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶21

Learned A.G.A. for the State does not dispute the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant.

¶22

In view of the above, aforesaid interim anticipatory bail order dated 07.02.2020 is made absolute till submission of police report under Section 173(3) Cr.P.C. on the terms and conditions as indicated in the above order dated 07.02.2020.

¶23

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶24

Order Date :- 18.1.2023 Rahul.

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay Singh and 16 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Singh and 16 Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ikrar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandra Shekhar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anuj Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Tahsin Begum and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Kumar Pal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Yadav and Anr. Vs State of U.P.