Allowed

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

Allahabad HC6 Jul 2023ABAIL/5722/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case involving allegations of cheating, assault, and criminal conspiracy over a property dispute. The court noted the civil nature of the dispute and the applicant's cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties and compliance with specific conditions including availability for interrogation and non-interference wit

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:132883

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5722 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Gaje Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bed Prakash Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Gaje Singh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 397 of 2022, under Sections 406, 420, 323, 341, 506, 364, 511, 307 IPC, Police Station- Inchauli, District- Meerut.

¶8

The FIR was lodged with the allegation that an agreement to sale took place between the informant and the present applicant and an advance money to a tune of Rs.40 lacs was paid to the applicant by the informant. Subsequently the informant came to know that prior to the aforesaid agreement to sale, an agreement to sale regarding same property was already been executed by the present applicant in favour of some other person. It is further alleged that when the informant requested him to execute the sale deed to settle the dispute, he was assaulted by the applicant and other co-accused person, who also made an attempt to kidnap him. FIR was lodged on 15.10.2022 and investigation started, which is still going on.

¶9

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is further submitted that the present dispute is of purely civil nature and the informant has tried to give it a colour of criminal case. It is further submitted that no sale deed in respect of the land in dispute was executed by the present applicant in favour of some other persons prior to the present agreement to sale dated 31.01.2020. It is further submitted that co-accused Ravindra has already been granted anticipatory

¶10

bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12705 of 2022 by order dated 14.03.2023. It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit and he is cooperating with the investigation of the case. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶12

Prima facie, it appears to be a dispute of civil in nature.

¶13

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶14

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶15

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2)

¶16

Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶17

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶20

(ii) 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶22

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant.

¶23

Order Date :- 6.7.2023 Fhd

¶24

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaje 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Veer Bhadur Yadav and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Usha Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jai Prakash and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sushant Vs State of U.P. and Another