Allowed

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

Allahabad HC24 Oct 2024/2430/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to Sandeep Singh in a case involving allegations of forgery. Bail was permitted till the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The court noted the accused's cooperation and that similarly placed co-accused had already been granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Direction that on arrest, applicant be released forthwith on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties on furnishing conditions until submission of police report.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:71992

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2430 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sandeep Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Adarsh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including up-to-date case diary.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant application has been moved by the applicant- Sandeep Singh in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0079 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., Police Station Ghazipur, District Lucknow, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending arrest in the abovementioned case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. In the F.I.R. 136 persons have been named including the applicant and allegations have been made that while applying for his registration the applicant has enclosed forged mark-sheet which after verification was not authenticated by the college by which it was shown to have been issued, however, the applicant was not named in the FIR.

¶10

It is vehemently submitted that without scrutinizing the relevant documents, first information report of this case has been lodged. The applicant had never applied for any registration nor had ever admitted in the B. Pharma or D. Pharma course and it appears that due to some misunderstanding the name of the applicant has been dragged into this case. It is also submitted that during the course of investigation name of 71 persons have also been further revealed.

¶11

It is next submitted that for the last three years the investigation of the case is going on and the applicant is

¶12

cooperating in the investigation. However, the same is at the concluding stage and the investigating officer by misinterpreting Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. is making all out efforts to apprehend/arrest of the applicant. Applicant is not having any criminal history and he is ready to cooperate in the investigation and would remain present before the investigating officer as and when his presence would be required. It is also submitted that identically placed co-accused, namely, Arvind Kumar Chaurasia and Abhishek Saxena have been granted the facility of anticipatory bail vide orders dated 29.02.2024 and 22.07.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.424 of 2024 and 1600 of 2024, respectively.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that having regard to the manner in which the offence has been committed, the applicant is not entitled for any protection.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged against 136 accused persons in which the applicant was not named. Allegations against them are identical i.e. of submitting forged documents and 71 more persons are shown to have been now added during the course of investigation and also keeping in view the fact that the investigation of this case is pending for the last three years and identically placed coaccused persons, namely, Arvind Kumar Chaurasia and Abhishek Saxena have already been granted the facility of anticipatory bail, a case of anticipatory bail is made out in favour of the applicant also.

¶15

Thus, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nathu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others, 2021(6) SCC 64, MANU/SC/0360/2021, protection from arrest for limited period of time i.e. till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., may be granted in favour of the applicant.

¶16

In result, the anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant- Sandeep Singh is finally disposed of with a direction that till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., in the event of arrest of the applicant in the above-mentioned case, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/ Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions:-

¶17

(1) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation or even for discovery of any fact by a police officer as and when required;

¶18

(2) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶19

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

¶20

In case of default of any condition the investigating officer may approach this Court for cancellation/modification of this order.

¶21

It is clarified that all the observations contained in this order are only for disposal of this anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial proceedings in any manner.

¶22

Order Date :- 24.10.2024 Praveen

¶23

Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manoj Verma @ Mannu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Shanti Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

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

Rajesh Kumar Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Rajesh Kumar Verma and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another