Shailendra Pratap Singh @ Rajjan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:56652

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1705 of 2024 Applicant :- Shailendra Pratap Singh @ Rajjan Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Apoorv Dev,Prashant Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in case crime No.27 of 2024 under Section 417, 419, 420, 447, 467, 468, 471, 386, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code and Section 2/3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Mall District Lucknow.

¶7

Counter affidavit filed by the complainant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Sudhir Kumar Mishra, learned Advocate who has filed counter affidavit along with vakalatnama which is taken on record.

¶9

This Court while granting interim protection to the applicant vide order dated 31.07.2024 has passed the following order:-

¶10

"1.The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant-Shailendra Pratap Singh @ Rajjan Singh seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.27 of 2024 under Section 417, 419, 420, 447, 467, 468, 471, 386, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code and Section 2/3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Mall District Lucknow.

¶11

2.Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶12

3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated. General allegations have been leveled on 4 named and 20-30 unnamed persons. He submits that dispute is purely civil in nature. The allegation in the F.I.R. that the land of Ghatghata Baba has been encroached by putting hoardings by the accused applicant have been found false. Inspection was carried out by the revenue team which is on

¶13

record (Annexure-5) which shows that there is no hoarding on the spot. The alleged trust deed has also been revoked after notice under Section 80 C.P.C. dated 1.02.2024 was given by the complainant. The applicant has no previous criminal history. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation.

¶14

4. Learned Addl. Government Advocate has opposed the prayer made by applicant's counsel. He prays for and is allowed two weeks' time to file objections/counter affidavit.

¶15

5.Issue notice to respondent No.2.

¶16

6.List on16.8.2024.

¶17

7. On due consideration to the fact that prima facie dispute appears to be civil in nature, the report of the revenue team, which is on record, as also the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶18

8. Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory 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.

¶19

9. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses. The accused-applicant shall report to the concerned police station/investigating officer within twenty days from today and 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.

¶20

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

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the investigation. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicant will not enter into the dispute premises till pendency of the trial.

¶22

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶23

On due consideration to the fact that prima facie the dispute appears to be civil in nature; report of the revenue team; the applicant has cooperated in the investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the investigation; he is not a previous convict, the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 31.07.2024 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex

¶24

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

¶25

In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant 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./trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed .

¶31

Order Date :- 20.8.2024

¶32

R.C.

¶33

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

Shailendra Pratap Singh @ Rajjan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendra Pratap Singh @ Rajjan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nankunna @ Shahid Ali and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Arvind @ Arvind Tiwari and another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and another

A (Minor) Thru. Guardian/Father B - Juvenile Delinquent vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Tapassum @ Tabassum vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Anil Kumar Alias Anil Kashyap vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Ram Chandra Verma @ Ram Chandr vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another