Allowed

Kashmir Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Jun 2023ABAIL/6415/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Kashmir Singh in an offence under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. The Court observed that the FIR was likely lodged with an intention to harass due to a pending civil suit and applied the Supreme Court judgment in Sushila Aggarwal.

What did the court decide?

Accused Kashmir Singh released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding appearance and conduct.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:127916

¶2

Court No. - 50

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6415 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Kashmir Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.1138 of 2017, registered under Sections 420 and 406 IPC at Police Station- Kairana, District- Shamli with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Applicant has not committed any offence and the fact is that agreement has been executed by the complainant and sale consideration has been transferred to his account which is annexed as Annexure no.6 of the bail application. The suit for specific performance has also been filed by the purchaser Lakhwinder Kaur against the complainant Mahaveer Singh. To avoid the transaction, on application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the F.I.R. has been lodged on a false and concocted story with intention to harass and humiliate the applicant and other co-accused persons by getting them arrested. It is also contended that co-accused, namely, Lakhwinder Kaur and Parvinder Singh have been granted interim protection by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.04.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. Nos.2775 of 2023 and 2777 of 2023 respectively.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the factual position.

¶10

Considering rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of allegations made in the F.I.R., gravity of the offence and other material available on record and, taking into consideration the fact that a civil case is pending in relation to the

¶11

subject matter and further it also appears that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged with intention to harass and humiliate the applicant by getting him arrested, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" .

¶12

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Kashmir Singh be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

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

¶14

(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;

¶15

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

¶16

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶20

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶21

Order Date :- 22.6.2023//SP/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kashmir Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashmir 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Paswan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Muneshwar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt Rekha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shreepal Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Taufeeq @ Maunu Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Gaur Vs State of U.P.