Allowed

Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Jun 2023ABAIL/5235/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application, the High Court directed the release of the applicant on anticipatory bail in a money-laundering fraud case pending trial, relying on the Constitution Bench judgment of Sushila Aggarwal without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed release of the applicant on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties on specified conditions.

Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:124949

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5235 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilendra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 382 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C., P.S.- Tundla, District- Firozabad during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It has further submitted that the applicant is never involved in this case. The applicant is ready to give the said amount to the informant. The applicant applied for anticipatory bail before the learned Session Judge, Firozabad, who without applying his judicial mind illegally rejected the same. There is no credible evidence against the applicant in the aforesaid case with regard to commit any fraud by him either with the informant or the bank concern. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. There is no criminal history of the applicant, except the present case.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶10

5 Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid

¶11

judgment of the Apex Court.

¶12

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant Pratap Singh involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

(1) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.

¶14

(2) 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.

¶15

(3) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶16

(4) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶17

(5) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶18

(6) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶19

(7) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶20

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public

¶21

Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of.

¶23

Order Date :- 7.6.2023/A.

¶24

Digitally signed by :- AFAQ AHMAD 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

Vikas Vs State of U.P.

Aakash Vs State of U.P.

Sarurabh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raghuveer and Another Vs State of U.P.

Bhanu @ Bhan Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another