Allowed

Dr. Birendra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2024/202/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of an anticipatory bail application filed by Dr. Birendra Singh in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case, relying on Sushila Aggarwal, holding him entitled to bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipatory bail is allowed; the applicant is directed to surrender before the trial court if summoned and shall be released on bail by the trial court subject to specific conditi

Dr. Birendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:49340

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 202 of 2023 Applicant :- Dr. Birendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kunwar Ravi Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anu Tiwari,Kaushal Kishore Misra (K.K.Misra),Om Shankar Tiwari,Shashank Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.217 of 2020 under sections 406, 420 I.P.C., P.S. Gomti Nagar Vistar, district Lucknow.

¶6

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

¶7

This Court while granting interim protection vide order dated 30.01.2023 has passed the following order:-

¶8

"The applicant has moved the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.12072 of 2021 under sections 406, 420 I.P.C., P.S. Gomti Nagar Vistar, district Lucknow.

¶9

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

¶10

It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that in the first information report, it is alleged that one Kalpana Singh and her husband Dr. Virendra Singh along with mediator Raj Kumar Lodhi had sold a piece of land in favour of the informant even after having known that the said land was already sold to Piyush Trivedi and Amit Kumar Singh and it was registered in their name and it is in their possession. It is further alleged that the informant has not been given its possession.

¶11

It is next submitted that the applicant is neither executor of the sale deed nor he is a witness. The sale deed has been executed by Smt. Kalpana Singh. The applicant has no concern with the property in question. No offence under sections 406, 420 I.P.C. is made out. The dispute is purely civil in nature and instead of taking recourse to civil suit, a short cut has been adopted by the informant and the first information report has been filed, which is nothing but a devise to exert pressured upon the applicant.

¶12

He further submits that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation. Charge sheet has been filed. He undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. who is granted fifteen days' time to file objections, has opposed the prayer made by the applicant's counsel and produced statement of the Tehsildar concerned. A perusal of the statement of the Tehsildar dated 30.10.2020 shows that on the disputed land, some one else is in possession.

¶14

Issue notice to respondent No.2.

¶15

List on 28.2.2023.

¶16

Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the applicant having no criminal antecedents, the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial and gravity of offence, the dispute is of purely of civil nature, the applicant is not the executor of the sale deed nor a witness to sale deed, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, subject to his cooperation in the trial.

¶17

In view of the above as also keeping in view of the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC OnLine 98, the accused applicant is directed to surrender before trial court if he is summoned to face trial for offence in question after filing of the charge sheet. The accused applicant shall be released on bail by the trial court on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, with the following conditions.

¶18

(i) 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or tamper with the evidence;

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶20

(iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶21

(iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶22

(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶23

Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.

¶24

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses."

¶25

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that charge sheet in

¶26

the matter has been filed. He has cooperated in the investigation and he undertakes to cooperate in the trial. He has no criminal antecedent.

¶27

Learned A.G.A.has vehemently opposed the bail application, however, could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. He further submits that charge-sheet in the matter has been filed.

¶28

On due consideration to the fact charge sheet in the matter has been filed; the applicant has no criminal history, he has cooperated in the investigation and he shall cooperate in the trial, the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 30.01.2023 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 .

¶29

In view of the above, since, charge-sheet in the matter has been filed, the accused applicant is directed to surrender before trial court, if he is summoned to face trial for offence in question. The accused applicant shall be released on bail by the trial court on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶30

¶31

(ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶32

(iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶33

(iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶34

(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶35

Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.

¶36

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶37

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed .

¶38

Order Date :- 22.7.2024 R.C.

¶39

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

Dr. Birendra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Birendra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko 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

Chandra Bhan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Ajeet Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Gaurav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rajendra Harijan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Atul Kulshreshtha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Angne @ Chhote Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.