Allowed

Jeman Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Oct 2023ABAIL/8656/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Jeman Singh in a criminal case involving alleged embezzlement. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents, noting the applicant's cooperation and return of funds, allowing bail until the end of trial.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed till the end of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties and abiding by specified conditions.

Jeman Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:192872

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8656 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Jeman Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

In compliance of the directions given by this Court vide orders dated 5.9.2023, 19.9.2023 and 3.10.2023, a compliance affidavit duly sworn-in by the deponent Sub-Inspector Jitendra Kumar, has been filed today by the learned AGA, which is taken on record. Further, in compliance of the order dated 22.9.2023, the Investigating Officer of the case, namely, Sub-Inspector Jitendra Kumar is also present before the Court. He is cautioned to be very vigilant in compliance of the orders passed by the Court in future.

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Jeman Singh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 29 of 2022, under Sections 420, 34 IPC, Police Station Ghiror, District Mainpuri.

¶8

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

¶9

It is submitted 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. It is further submitted that due to inadvertent mistake the development work was performed in some other village exceeding the jurisdiction by the applicant and other co-accused persons. It is also submitted that there was no intention on the part of the applicant to commit any fraud or to cause embezzlement of public fund. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact even before lodging the F.I.R. the entire amount to the tune of Rs. 28, 243/which is said to be the embezzled amount, was already deposited by the concerned Gram Pradhan, the co-accused, in favour of the concerned government department. Applicant has no criminal history to his credit. After completion of investigation, charge

¶10

sheet has been submitted into the matter. No process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC has been issued against the applicant and the applicant has not been declared absconder. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but however he could not dispute this fact that the development work was completed on the spot and the embezzled amount has been deposited in favour of the concerned government department.

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that some development work was performed in some another village, which was outside the jurisdiction of the present applicant, who was working as Secretary, Gram Panchayat, and the concerned Gram Pradhan and thereby a loss of Rs. 28,243/- of public money was caused to the government. F.I.R. was lodged on 30.1.2022 and investigation started, which culminated into charge sheet. It also reveals from the perusal of the record that the applicant has been cooperative during investigation. The alleged embezzled amount has been deposited in the concerned government department.

¶14

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶15

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶16

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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, likelihood 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.

¶17

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the end of trial.

¶18

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶19

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 the Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall make himself available before the Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

In case of default of any of the conditions, the same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶24

Order Date :- 6.10.2023

¶25

safi

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jeman Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeman Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Vishan Swaroop Maheshwari Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others

Neeru and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nagendra Kumar Gupta @ Nagendra Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Laki @ Lucky Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neetu Solanki @ Kushlendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another