Allowed

Sanjay Pandey v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2023ABAIL/7541/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The trial court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Sanjay Pandey in a cheating and forgery case. The court noted the dispute appeared civil and the applicant cooperated with the investigation, finding it a fit case for bail until the police report was filed.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed. Bail granted on bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including availability for interrogation and not leaving India without permission.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:145043

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7541 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjay Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi 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- Sanjay Pandey seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 817 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Cantt. District- Gorakhpur.

¶8

It is alleged that co-accused Om Prakash Pandey executed a sale deed of a plot in favour of the informant in the year 2013 but the possession thereof was not handed over. Subsequently a boundry wall was constructed by the present applicant and co-accused Om Prakash Pandey in view of the terms of the sale deed and possession was handed over to the informant. Subsequently the informant came to know that some other persons has started construction of house inside the boundary wall of the informant. Co-accused Om Prakash Pandey subsequently refused to hand over the land to the informant, thereafter, FIR was lodged.

¶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 accused applicant has absolutely no role in the commission of the alleged crime. The land in dispute does not belong to the present applicant and no sale deed executed by him in favour of the informant in respect of the land in dispute. It is further submitted that the present applicant is even not a witness in the sale deed aforesaid. It is further submitted that the accused applicant has been cooperative so far during the course of investigation. It is also submitted that earlier a protection was

¶10

granted to the applicant in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1717 of 2022 by this Court vide order dated 2.3.2022 but subsequently the said writ petition was dismissed in default. It is also stated that criminal history of the accused applicant has been explained in the affidavit itself annexed with the anticipatory bail application. 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

In the present case, the dispute prima facie appears to be of civil nature and the accused applicant is cooperating with the investigation and no custodial interrogation appears to be required.

¶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

¶16

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) 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 :- 20.7.2023 Fhd

¶24

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

Sanjay Pandey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Pandey 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

Jaswant Singh Vs State of U.P.

Harchand Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Taki Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lalit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chintu @ Mukesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amar@ Rauki Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others