Allowed

Pankaj K Singh @ Pankaj Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2024/342/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for an accused facing criminal charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC. The order directs release upon arrest subject to strict conditions pending the filing of the police report.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail conditioned upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties upon arrest, requiring availability for investigation and compliance with restrictions.

Pankaj K Singh @ Pankaj Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:15396

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 342 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Pankaj K Singh @ Pankaj Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Nadeem Murtaza,Gauri Suwan Pandey,Wali Nawaz Khan

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶8

Heard Mr. Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the applicant, as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter, including upto date case diary, and investigation of this case is still going on.

¶10

This application has been moved by the applicant- Pankaj K Singh alias Pankaj Kumar Singh for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.05 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC lodged at Police Station SIT Lucknow, District Lucknow.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. The FIR of the instant case was registered in the year 2017 and the applicant was not named therein and after thorough investigation charge-sheet was filed, however, the name of the applicant was not surfaced therein also and later on in the year 2019, a decision has been taken at the government end to get the matter investigated by the special investigation team (SIT) and now the investigation is being conducted by the SIT. It is further submitted that the investigation of the case has completed once and he has cooperated, there is no requirement of arrest of the applicant only for the purpose of filing of charge-sheet, however, the present investigating officer is trying hard to arrest the applicant, while there is no such need of arresting the applicant even if any adverse police report under section 173(2) CrPC is to be filed. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharth v. State of UP : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615 and Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Director : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 941.

¶12

It is vehemently submitted that six FIRs have been lodged against the applicant on the basis of identical allegations and it is alleged that

¶13

fake FDRs have been submitted by the applicant and other co-accused persons in order to get a certificate from the district magistrate concerned, however in an identical case bearing Crime/FIR No.0811 of 2017 lodged at police station Kotwali Nagar, district Etah the applicant has been granted protection from arrest till conclusion of trial vide order dated 19.12.2022 and the facts of the present case are identical to that case. It is further submitted that the applicant has thoroughly cooperated in the investigation and it is on this background there was no necessity occurred before the investigating officer to arrest the applicant in the last four years during the pendency of the investigation and without there being any requirement the investigating officer is attempting hard to arrest the applicant which is not required at this juncture. Apart from above six cases of identical nature, there is no other criminal case pending against the applicant and there is no apprehension that the applicant, after release on anticipatory bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶14

Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, opposes the prayer of the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶15

Considering the fact that the applicant was not named in the FIR and he was not even charge sheeted after investigation and thereafter in the year 2019 the investigation was handed over to SIT and for the last four years the investigation is being conducted by the SIT and the applicant has still not been arrested, the personal liberty of the applicant may be protected in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2020)5 SCC 1 (Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 1 SCC 694 (Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra) , 2021(6) SCC 64 MANU/SC/0360/2021 (Nathu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others) and MANU/SC/0215/1980 Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors vs. State of Punjab till submission of police report under section 173(2) CrPC.

¶16

In result, this anticipatory bail application, moved on behalf of the applicant- Pankaj K Singh alias Pankaj Kumar Singh is finally disposed of in terms that till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in the event of arrest of the applicant by the S.H.O. of the Police Station concerned, Investigating Officer or under any process of the Court, he shall be released on anticipatory bail forthwith in the above noted case on his executing a personal bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of SHO/ Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions:-

¶17

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

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any

¶19

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;

¶20

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

¶21

If in the opinion of the SHO/I.O. default of any of the condition placed above is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for them to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and they can approach this Court for cancellation or modification of the order.

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date:- 21.2.2024

¶24

MVS/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pankaj K Singh @ Pankaj Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj K Singh @ Pankaj Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

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

Indrajeet Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Jai Prakash Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Mayank Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jaswant vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Dharamveer Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Dept. of Home

Jaswant Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.