Allowed

Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2023ABAIL/997/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to an applicant accused of cheating and forgery, accepting the submission that allegations were false and his role was limited to being a witness in a disputed sale deed transaction.

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipatory bail was allowed till filing of the charge sheet, subject to personal bond and conditions including non-interference with witnesses and non-export.

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

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 997 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Sanjay Kumar Singh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.457 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Bairia, District Ballia.

¶7

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. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶8

It is further submitted that in the F.I.R., it is alleged that the present applicant is the witness of the impugned sale deed. As an imposter for the mother of the informant, main accused Sumitra Devi had obtained some sale deed, which was in the ownership of the mother of the informant. The role assigned to the present applicant is to be the witness of the sale deed. He is not the vendor or the vendee and no consideration has been passed. Investigation is going on in the matter. No criminal history has been assigned to the applicant.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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 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 charge sheet in the matter.

¶13

The application is allowed .

¶14

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:-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 17.4.2023 ss

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Singh 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

Subham Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

Jagdish Prasad and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dau Dayal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Asif Vs State of U.P.

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

Deepak Vs State of U.P. and Another