Dismissed

Harendra Narayan Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2023ABAIL/7148/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by Harendra Narayan Singh and Arun Kumar Singh in a cheating and fraud case involving misappropriation of investor money. The court held that given the applicants' role, nature of accusation, and potential to influence investigation, it was not a fit case to grant bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was refused and the application was rejected.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:131342

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7148 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Harendra Narayan Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant nos. 1.Harendra Narayan Singh and 2. Arun Kumar Singh @ Arun Kumar seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0289 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police StationKhajni, District- Gorakhpur.

¶8

The FIR contains the allegations that on persuasion of present applicants, who were the employees of Kaimuna Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. the informant made a huge investment in the aforesaid company. It was persuaded by the applicants that he will get double of his money, which is invested in the aforesaid company, however, after the maturity period payment was not made and the company was closed. By deceitful means. Rs.3,70,000/- were grabbed by the company from the informant. FIR was lodged on 25.9.2022 and investigation started, which is going on.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and has no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicanta are false. It is further argued that investigation is going-on and till date no charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused applicants. It is further submitted that the FIR is premature and even before the maturity period FIR has been lodged by the informant. It is further submitted that the company is still working and no request for payment has been made by the informant to the company. It is further submitted that the present applicants are only the agents in the concerned Kaimuna Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. and they have no concern with the business of the company. It is further

¶10

submitted that the company is ready and willing to repay the amount taken by the investors. It is further submitted that the applicants have no criminal history and despite the fact that the offences alleged against them are punishable with the imprisonment for maximum period of seven years, no notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. has been given to them. It has been submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they 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. It is submitted that the informant had invested a huge amount of money in different schemes of the company and under one scheme, which was matured in the year 2002 the amount was not repaid by the applicants. One other amount wherein Rs.500/- per month has been deposited is also not repaid to the informant. It is further submitted that the I.O. made an attempt to serve notice under Section 41-A to the applicants but they did not make themselves available to the I.O. and that is why no notice could be served to them. It is further submitted that there are ample grounds and reasons mentioned in the case diary on the basis of which the investigation against the applicants is going on without serving a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the applicants and other office bearers of the company have fled away and huge amount of informant and other investors have been grabbed by the company. On these grounds prayer for refusal of anticipatory bail has been made.

¶12

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled 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.

¶13

In the present case, public money has been misappropriated by the accused persons in the name of their company and they cannot escape their liability.

¶14

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the

¶15

parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, I deem it not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicants. Prayer made in the application is refused.

¶16

The anticipatory bail application is rejected .

¶17

Order Date :- 4.7.2023 Fhd

¶18

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

Harendra Narayan Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harendra Narayan 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

Nand Kishor Nayak Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bobby Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Vs State of U.P.

Malkhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Motilal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sunil Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another