Allowed

Sandeep Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lko. U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2024/1587/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court made an interim anticipatory bail order absolute. Applying Supreme Court dictum in Sushila Aggarwal, the court granted relief considering the applicant's distinct role from co-accused and his undertaking to cooperate in the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions to cooperate in investigation, remain present for interrogation, and not leave India without permission.

Sandeep Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lko. U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:59539

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1587 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sandeep Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lko. U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Neeraj Kumar Saxena,Gaurav Saxena,Rajni Saxena,Rishi Saxena,Seena Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in FIR/ Case Crime No.45/2020, under Sections 409, 420 I.P.C., P.S. Gomtinagar, District Lucknow.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

This Court while granting interim protection vide order dated 18.07.2024 has passed the following order:-

¶10

"Heard learned counsel the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶11

The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/F.I.R No. 45/2020, under Sections 409, 420 I.P.C., P.S. Gomtinagar, District Lucknow.

¶12

It is alleged in the prosecution case that accused while hatching conspiracy with the co-accused persons has usurp Rs.12,76,075/- of the complainant.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that offence, if any, has been done by the co-accused persons. Applicant is only store keeper in the company. Cheque has not been issued under signature of applicant. The complicity of the applicant could not be found by the Investigating Officer evenafter four years of lodging of the F.I.R. no charge-sheet has been filed against him

¶14

till date however, apprehension of arrest in this case. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that applicant will cooperate in the investigation.

¶15

Learned Addl. Government Advocate prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit. List on 09.08.2024.

¶16

Considering the above aspect of the matter, perusal of the record as well as the role of the applicant which is distinct from the co-accused persons, undertaking given by the applicant to cooperate in the investigation as also the judgment of Apex Court passed in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶17

Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant-Sandeep Singh shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.

¶18

The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶19

In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection." Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has cooperated in the investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the investigation as well as in the trial. Offences are triable by magistrate.

¶20

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application, however, submits that investigation is pending against the present applicant.

¶21

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the fact that offences are triable by magistrate, coupled with the undertaking given by the applicant that he will cooperate in the investigation as also the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 18.07.2024 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court

¶22

in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶23

In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant- Sandeep Singh shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid Case Crime number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned with the following conditions:-

¶24

(1) The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses.

¶25

(2) The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/1.O./S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation.

¶26

(3) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶27

(4) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶28

The application disposed of.

¶29

Order Date :- 30.8.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sandeep Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lko. U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bajrangi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Pein. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Vitarani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Up Lko. and Another

Vijay Kaumr Mishra vs C.B.I. Thru. Superintendent of Police C.B.I. /EO-1 New Delhi

Ruchi Agahari and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Anshal Tiwari @ Suraj vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Shadab Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko