Disposed

Pramod Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lucknow, U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2024ABAIL/12/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court refused anticipatory bail but disposed of the application by allowing pre-arrest bail under Nathu Singh if the applicant surrenders within 20 days or files a regular bail application earlier, upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail refused; however, pre-arrest bail granted if applicant surrenders within 20 days or files regular bail application earlier, subject to bond and surety.

Pramod Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1154

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lucknow, U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dev Mani Mishra 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 upto date case diary of the case.

¶7

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

¶8

The present application has been moved by the accusedapplicant- Pramod Kumar Singh , in Case Crime No.587 of 2019, under Sections 504, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali City, District Pratapgarh, with the prayer to grant him anticipatory bail in the above mentioned case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶10

It is further submitted that even after sale deed has been made in favour of mother of the informant, with regard to the money which was taken by the applicant and other accused person, the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged and therefore, it is evident that the F.I.R. has been lodged on false and frivolous facts. It is further submitted that even if the case of the prosecution is believed the same appears to be a pure civil matter and filing of charge sheet was not at all required and the same has been filed in order to harass the applicant.

¶11

It is next submitted that the applicant is a respectable citizen of the locality and is ready to cooperate in the trial as charge sheet has already been submitted and therefore, the protection be granted to the applicant and he is not having any criminal history.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. also opposes the prayer of anticipatory bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant and co-accused person are taken Rs.12.80 lakhs from the informant and when they did not execute the sale deed in lieu of money taken by them, the informant approached the proposed sellers and by paying them consideration separately had executed a sale deed in favour of his mother, therefore, no benefit of the sale deed, which has been executed in the name of the mother of the informant may be taken by the applicant.

¶13

It is also submitted that when Rs.12.80 lakhs received by the applicant and co-accused person was not paid back to the informant, he had also instituted a civil suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pratapgarh, which is still pending, thus having regard to the manner in which a government servant has been defrauded of Rs.12.80 lakhs, the applicant is not entitled for any relief.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that Rs.12.80 lakhs appears to have been paid by the informant to the applicant and co-accused person since 06.11.2017 to 28.12.2017, however, the sale deed is said to have not been executed in favour of the informant or his mother and thereafter it is reflected that the informant had contacted directly to the proposed sellers and got the sale deed executed in the name of his mother by paying required consideration and for the recovery of money, which was received by the applicant and co-accused person, a civil suit has been instituted by the informant. If a bundle of facts give rise to the civil as well as criminal consequences, adoption of the civil remedy may not be a bar for prosecution on criminal side. In this regard, the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priti Saraf & another Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & another ; MANU/SC/0172/2021 may be recalled.

¶15

Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the involvement of the applicant in the alleged crime, I do not find any good ground on the basis of which, facility of anticipatory bail may be extended to the applicant and therefore, the same is refused .

¶16

However, since the charge sheet has already been filed and the applicant has not been arrested during the course of investigation and having regard to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773, Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Director : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 941 and Siddharth v. State of UP : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615 , the instant anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant is

¶17

finally disposed of in terms that if the applicant appears/surrenders before the trial court within 20 days from today i.e. till 25.01.2024 and moves a regular bail application before the trial court under Section 437/439 Cr.P.C. as the case may be, the trial court shall be under an obligation to dispose of the same strictly in accordance with the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), Aman Preet Singh (supra) and Siddharth(supra) .

¶18

Having regard to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nathu Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others :(2021) 6 SCC 64, it is provided that for 20 days from today i.e. till 25.01.2024 or till filing of regular bail application before the trial court, whichever is earlier, in the event of arrest of the applicant namely Pramod Kumar Singh involved in the above noted 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 trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶19

(1) The applicant shall appear/surrender before the trial court within 20 days from today i.e. till 25.01.2024.

¶20

(2) If the applicant will not follow the terms of this order setforth herein-before, he shall not be entitled for any benefit of the instant order after the expiry of 20 days from today i.e. beyond 25.01.2024.

¶21

Order Date :- 5.1.2024 Anupam S/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pramod Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lucknow, U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lucknow, U.P.

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

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

Atul Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Amardeep Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Pankaj Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ajay Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Balla Ram and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.