Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2023ABAIL/288/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court examined a plea for anticipatory bail by guarantors accused of forging a loan discharge certificate. Finding direct allegations of complicity and forgery, the court held that the case was not fit for anticipatory bail and rejected the application.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application was rejected; no protection was granted.

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

¶1

Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 288 of 2023 Applicant :- Rajendra Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Debee Shanker Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Satish Chandra Dubey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Debee Shanker Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the papers on record.

¶4

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants- Rajendra Singh and Chandrajeet Singh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.110 of 2022, under sections420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Pakbada, District- Moradabad.

¶5

As per prosecution case, the F.I.R. was lodged by the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Branch- Pakbada, Moradabad alleging that the property of one Pratap Singh was mortgaged in favour of the bank for securing a loan advanced to Pratap Singh; a sum of Rs.5,15,688/- was still due on Pratap Singh and no discharge certificate was ever issued by the bank; the guarantors of the loan, i.e., Rajendra Singh and Chandrajeet Singh and Pratap Singh, who took the loan, prepared a forged and fabricated certificate showing discharge of loan; the matter was disclosed when copy of that certificate was transmitted to the bank concerned.

¶6

It is contended on behalf of the applicants that the main allegation has been imputed against Pratap Singh only who took the loan and that the present applicants have nothing to do with either taking of loan or payment of amount due or preparation of the discharge certificate; they are innocent and therefore they may be granted protection of anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶7

The anticipatory bail application is opposed on behalf of the State placing before me the fact that the present applicants were guarantor of loan taken by Pratap Singh and there are direct allegations against them for preparation of forged/fabricated certificate purportedly issued by the bank complete with forged signature of the Bank Manager and fake stamp of the bank. The complicity of present applicants has been found.

¶8

Prima facie, it does not appear that the F.I.R. has been lodged against them with the purpose of bringing disgrace or cause humiliation to them 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.

¶9

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

¶10

Hence, the anticipatory bail application is rejected .

¶11

Order Date :- 27.1.2023 Shivangi

¶12

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Singh and Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tuntun Kumar Byahut Vs State of U.P.

Mr. Suresh Khatua Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sandhya Chaudhary and Another Vs State of U.P.

Yasmeen Vs State of U.P.

Satish Kumar Mittal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Pavan Kumar Kaushik Vs State of U.P. and Another