Allowed

Omkant Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2023ABAIL/8844/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The single judge allowed the application pending filing of the police report, citing cooperation with investigation and lack of credible evidence, and imposed standard bail conditions including a personal bond and restrictions on leaving India.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted pending filing of charge-sheet; applicant to furnish personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties and comply with standard bail conditions.

Omkant Singh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194779

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8844 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Omkant Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Omkant Singh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.583 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 10 Examination Act, P.S. Kwarsi, District Aligarh.

¶8

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

¶9

It has been 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 the present applicant has never appeared in the V.D.O. Examination and he has absolutely no knowledge as to who and why appeared in his name in the said examination. Applicant has no concern with the co-accused Raj Kumar @ Raju. It is further submitted that by way of supplementary affidavit filed today this fact that when co-accused Raj Kumar @ Raju was held by the authority concerned, he disclosed the name of the present and he was arrested on the spot has been clarified and as a matter of fact the present applicant was never arrested or produced before the Court. The investigation of the case is going-on and chargesheet has not been filed. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned

¶12

counsel for the parties.

¶13

It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that as an imposter in place of the present applicant co-accused Raj Kumar @ Raju was appearing in the V.D.O. Examination and he was held but the said accused disclosed his name as Omkant Singh before the authorities. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation started, which is still going on. It also reveals from the perusal of the record that that the applicant is cooperating with the investigation.

¶14

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, 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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 filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC before the Competent Court.

¶17

11. 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 protection granted to the applicant.

¶23

Order Date :- 10.10.2023

¶24

safi

¶25

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

Omkant Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omkant 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

Chandrabhan Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Tara Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Bishnoi Vs State of U.P.

Aman Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Deepa Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aas Mohammad Vs State of U.P. and Another