Allowed

Kunwar Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2024ABAIL/349/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Kunwar Bahadur Singh regarding FIRs under Sections 419, 420, 406, and 408 IPC. The applicant was not arrested during investigation, and a co-accused had already been granted bail. The Court granted bail on personal bond and sureties to appear within 20 days.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond and two sureties; applicant to appear before trial court within 20 days.

Kunwar Bahadur Singh vs State of U.P Thru. Addl… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:15939

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 349 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Kunwar Bahadur Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Verma,Kunj Bihari Pandey,Tufail Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter, including upto date case diary, and charge-sheet in this case has already been filed.

¶8

This application has been moved by the applicant- Kunwar Bahadur Singh for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.0163 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 406 and 408 IPC lodged at Police Station Sangipur, District Pratapgarh.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication.The applicant was only an Area General Manager of 'Jansankalp Hit Nidhi Limited' (hereinafter referred to as the 'company') and he was not in a position to manage the company as the directors of the company were Mr. Shoeb Kazmi, Mr. Najmuddin Kazmi and Vishakha Dhusia as is evident from the articles of association and certificate of incorporation, copies of which have been placed on record at page nos. 59 to 89 of the paper-book. It is vehemently submitted that it has been admitted by the informant and the victims mentioned therein that the applicant was only working in the company and the money was deposited in the bankaccount of the company and there was no cash transaction and since the applicant was not in a position to manage the company and as he was only an employee, he may not be vicariously held liable for any mischief committed by those persons who at the relevant point of time were managing the company. It is further submitted that the applicant is not having any previous criminal antecedent to his credit. He has cooperated in the investigation and due to this reason he has not been arrested by the investigating officer and the charge-sheet

¶10

has been filed without making his arrest and he is apprehending that when he will appear before the trial Court and move application for regular bail, as per prevalent practice, the disposal of his regular bail application may take sometime and in the meantime he may be confined in prison which will not only tarnish his reputation in the society but jeopardize his liberty also. The applicant undertakes that as he has cooperated during investigation he will also cooperate in the trial and would remain present before the trial Court as and when his presence would be required 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. Identically placed co-accused person, namely, Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari has already been granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 06.02.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 193 of 2024.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that during the course of investigation the applicant was not arrested and the charge-sheet has been filed without making his arrest, identically placed co-accused person, namely, Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari has already been granted bail by this Court and also keeping 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 Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors vs. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0215/1980, this anticipatory bail application, moved on behalf of the applicant- Kunwar Bahadur Singh deserves to be allowed. Thus, it is allowed and a direction is issued that in the event of arrest of the applicant under any process of the trial Court or on his/her presence/surrender before the trial Court within 20 days from today i.e. till 13.03.2024, whichever is earlier, he/she shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his/her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

(i). The applicant, if not arrested earlier, shall appear before the trial court within 20 days from today i.e. till 13.03.2024 and cooperate in the trial and shall not seek any adjournment when the prosecution witness would be in attendance.

¶14

(ii). In case of further investigation or re-investigation the

¶15

applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and make himself/herself available as and when required by the Investigating officer of the case, even for the recovery of any fact.

¶16

(iii). The applicant shall not make any attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses and will also not commit any crime during his/her release on anticipatory bail.

¶17

(iv). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and specially when the prosecution witnesses are present in court.

¶18

(v). The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶19

If in the opinion of the trial court default of any of the condition placed above is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and shall proceed against him/her in accordance with law.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 22.2.2024 Praveen

¶22

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

Kunwar Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunwar Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. 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

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

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.

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and Another

Gopal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

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