Allowed

Sandeep Singh v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2024ABAIL/10232/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant charged under the Electricity Act. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents regarding criminal pendency and allowed bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail on personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions regarding appearance and non-interference.

Sandeep Singh vs State of Up and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:168926

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10232 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sandeep Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Puneet Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 477 of 2022, under Section 3/7 E.C. Act, Police Station Akrabad, District Aligarh, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

¶10

This is the second anticipatory bail application moved under the E.C. Act. The first one was dismissed, as it was found that the offence committed is bailable but later on, it was found that the case is non-bailable, as such, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶11

The applicant has a criminal history of two cases, which has been lodged subsequent to the instant case. The said cases are lodged as Case Crime No. 109 of 2022, u/s 3/7 E.C. Act, Police Station Akrabad, District Aligharh, and Case Crime No. 629 of 2023, u/s 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC, Police Station Akrabad, District Aligharh, He has no previous criminal history. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶12

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

¶13

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

¶14

The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail has been opposed but the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the applicant has not been opposed.

¶15

CONCLUSION:

¶16

In the judgement of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶17

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶18

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶19

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Sandeep Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶20

i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶21

ii. that 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶22

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶23

v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶24

vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶25

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶26

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

¶27

Order Date :- 23.10.2024 Shalini

¶28

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sandeep Singh v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Singh v. State of Up 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

Baba Seth Alias Baba Khan vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivam Rajput vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashutosh Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Ashi vs State of Up

Shubhankar Arya and Another vs State of U.P.

Surendra Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another