Allowed

Rohit Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2024ABAIL/20/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case involving cheating and criminal breach of trust, applying the principle of parity with a co-accused who had previously been granted bail. The protection was granted for a limited period subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. subject to personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1768

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 20 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rohit Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Zubair Hasan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned AGA informs that she 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 present anticipatory bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Rohit Singh in Case Crime No. 238 of 2023, under Sections 409,419,420,468,471,504,506 I.P.C and 65 of the IT Act, Police Station Kurebhar, District Sultanpur, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-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 though in the FIR, it is stated that the amount to the tune of lakhs of rupees have been misappropriated. However, no detail of the same has been given and the FIR appears to have been lodged on the basis of vague allegations.

¶11

It is further submitted that it could not be denied that the applicant was employed in the company to whom the work of feeding ATM was entrusted and he was feeding the ATMs along with other employees of the Company, one of whom was coaccused Ashish Pandey who was also named in the FIR along with the applicant and noticing certain discrepancies in the version of the prosecution, a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2644 of 2023 has extended the facility of anticipatory bail to him (Ashish Pandey) and thus, the same facility on the basis of principle of parity be also

¶12

extended to the applicant when his case could not be distinguished vis-a-vis the case of the co-accused Ashish Pandey.

¶13

It is also submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history. The investigating officer without there being any cogent and reliable material/evidence is making all out efforts to apprehend/arrest the applicant and there is no apprehension that after being granted facility of anticipatory bail, applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. He undertakes that he is ready to cooperate in the investigation as well as in the trial as and when required and thus, protection from arrest be granted to him.

¶14

Learned AGA on the other hand opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant and submits that the role of the applicant is distinguishable from the role of the co-accused Ashish Pandey as his employment with the company has been doubted by the coordinate Bench which has released the coaccused Ashish Pandey on bail.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is reflected that the applicant is stated to be employed in a Company which was engaged in feeding the ATMs and the applicant and other co-accused persons named in the FIR were together performing this job. The coordinate Bench while granting anticipatory bail to the co-accused Ashish Pandey has noticed the submissions made on behalf of the complainant/informant with regard to the fact that at the time of feeding the ATMs, the instant applicant was present along with the other accused persons and he (applicant) was not in the service of the company. Identically placed co-accused i.e. Ashish Pandey has been released on anticipatory bail.

¶16

Thus, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view that the applicant is not having any criminal antecedents and other accused person of the crime namely, Ashish Pandey has been granted anticipatory bail by coordinate Bench of this Court, who according to the Coordinate Bench is having a different case than the applicant. Thus having regard to the reasons mentioned above and keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors., MANU/SC/1021/2010, Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors., MANU/SC/0100/2020, Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. v. State of Punjab, MANU/SC/0215/1980 : 1980 (2) SCC 565, and Nathu Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others:(2021) 6 SCC 64 , in the considered opinion of this court, having regard to the

¶17

material/evidence available against the applicant, the applicant may be provided protection from arrest for a limited period of time.

¶18

Thus the instant anticipatory bail application is finally disposed of in terms that till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent court in the event of arrest of the applicant- Rohit Singh involved in aforesaid case crime number shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/Investigating Officer concerned with the following conditions:-

¶19

(1) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation or for discovery of any fact by a police officer/investigating officer as and when required and will cooperate in the investigation.

¶20

(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;

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 8.1.2024 Shravan

¶23

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

Rohit Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Ankit Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and 3 Others

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

Rabia Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko.

Arun Awasthi vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 4 Others

Virendra Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Abhisek Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.