Allowed

Shishu Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2024ABAIL/6298/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to an applicant accused in FIRs regarding a prize chit scheme and forgery, relying on the principle that pendency of other cases does not warrant refusal of bail. The court imposed standard conditions for release upon arrest.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to furnishing personal bond with two sureties and compliance with standard conditions including cooperation with investigation and appearing before the trial court.

Shishu Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:109915

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6298 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shishu Pal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kumar Dhananjay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 319 of 2017, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and 3, 4, 5, 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, Police Station Kavinagar, District Ghaziabad, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to be the employee of the company, which had duped several consumers to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs on the pretext that they shall be given heavy profit on the investment.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has the apprehension of his arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is stated that the case of the applicant is at a different footing to the co-accused person Sandeep Garg. Learned counsel has next stated that the case qua the main accused person Sandeep Garg, has been quashed by this Court vide order dated 24.6.2019 passed in Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 22890 of 2019 on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. It is further stated that the matter was settled once for all on the ground of the said co-accused person Sandeep Garg returning the said amount and nothing remains in the instant case, as the applicant was simply an employee of the said institution.

¶10

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against

¶11

him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that in all, five FIRs have been instituted against the applicant including the present one regarding the same company. It is stated that in three of those cases, the applicant has been enlarged on bail and in one case, the proceedings have been stayed, as such, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶13

In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed much reliance upon 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.

¶14

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Shishu Pal 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:-

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶21

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 :- 5.7.2024 S.Prakash

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shishu Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shishu Pal Singh v. State of U.P. 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