Allowed

Santosh Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2023ABAIL/7519/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application, the Allahabad High Court enlarged the applicant on anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., directing compliance with conditions set in the Constitution Bench judgment of Sushila Aggarwal.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties subject to seven specific conditions including presence for framing of charges and no inducement of witnesses.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:147655

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7519 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Santosh Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit has been filed today, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶8

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.102 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC and 60/63 Excise Act, Police Station Kandwan, District Chandauli.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant is not named in the FIR. The complicity of the applicant has been shown after years of the alleged incident only on the confessional statement of coaccused Akshay Lal Yadav, who has already be granted bail by the court below vide order dated 29.11.2021, copy of the bail order has been annexed as Annexure No.4 to the affidavit filed in support of the application. He further submits that the applicant was only owner of the said Truck and the same Truck has already been sold to co-accused Akshay Lal Yadav on 20.07.2021 whereas the incident is alleged to have taken place on 09.11.2011.He further submits that there is no independent eye witness of the alleged recovery, as as been alleged, as such the prosecution has not complied with mandatory provisions of Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C. All offences as shown in the FIR are triable by 1st Class Magistrate. Prima facie no alleged offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 9 of the affidavit. He further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, the

¶10

applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶12

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 judgment of the Apex Court.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Santosh Singh, involved in the aforesaid case 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:-

¶14

(i) 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.

¶15

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(v) 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.

¶19

(vi) 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 .

¶20

(vii) 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

¶21

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.

¶22

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 25.7.2023 Ajeet

¶25

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Santosh Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh 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

Mahesh Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jitendra Kumar @ Jeetu Vs State of U.P.

Babloo Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anurag Kumar @ Golu Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Hamja Vs State of U.P. and Another