Allowed

Madhav Singh v. State of Up

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2024ABAIL/6848/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Madhav Singh in a theft case. Relying on Section 25 of the Evidence Act to exclude inadmissible police confessions, the court found no prima facie case. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions regarding arrest, travel, cooperation with investigation, and maintenance of law and order.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted for offences under Sections 380, 457, 411 IPC; Applicant to furnish personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties and comply with specified conditions.

Madhav Singh vs State of Up — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:124743

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6848 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Madhav Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Babu Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶7

The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Madhav Singh in Case Crime No. 378 of 2023 under Sections 380, 457, 411 I.P.C., Police Station - Malpura, District - Agra.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that FIR was lodged against unknown persons witih regard to theft. Subsequently, co-accused has been apprehended and from his possession recovery has been made. It is further submitted that name of the applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused. There is no other evidence linking the applicant with the alleged crime. Applicant has no previous criminal history. It is further submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and has no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further argued that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. If the applicant is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and cooperate with the investigation. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest by the police any time.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer but does not dispute the factual matrix.

¶10

It is not shown by learned AGA that the offence in question will have impact on society at large. It is not shown that act causes harm to the society. The accusations arise out of dispute between individuals. It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicant for relief of anticipatory bail. Learned AGA has not

¶11

raised concern that any prejudice would be caused to free, fair and full investigation in the event the applicant is granted anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶12

Learned Counsel for opposite parties has not placed any criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history.

¶13

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶14

7-A. In the instant case, the evidence is confessional statement of the co-accused while in custody of police. By virtue of the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, a confession made to a police officer under no circumstance is admissible in evidence against an accused. Inadmissibility of a confessional statement made to a police office under Section 25 of the Evidence Act is based on the ground of public policy. The object of inadmissibility in evidence of the confession is to ensure that the person accused of offence would not be induced by coercion, threat, or force to make confession and officer would make every effort to collect the evidence of the commission of crime apart from confession. Section 25 of the Evidence Act bars proof of admission of an offence by an accused to a police officer or made by him while in the custody of a police officer. Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that no statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation shall be used as evidence. No other material or evidence has been shown by opposite party which would indicate the complicity of the applicant in the alleged crime.

¶15

In view of the above, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail in respect of offence described in para-2 of the present order. In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till submission of report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police office as and when required.

¶17

(ii) 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 office.

¶18

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

¶19

(iv) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned/Investigating Officer about new residential address in writing.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself/herself available for interrogation whenever required.

¶21

(vi) The applicant shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police.

¶22

(vii) The applicant shall maintain law and order.

¶23

(viii) The applicant shall at the time of execution of the bond, furnish his address and mobile number to investigating officer, and the court concerned.

¶24

(ix) The applicant shall regularly remain present during the trial, and cooperate with the Court to complete the trial for the above offences.

¶25

(x) Non presence of the applicant or his counsel before the court concerned shall be construed as violation

¶26

of the present order and the court concerned would be at liberty to take coercive measures in accordance with law.

¶27

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶28

With the directions made above, the anticipatory bail application stands allowed.

¶29

Order Date :- 2.8.2024

¶30

S.Prakash

¶31

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

Madhav Singh v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhav Singh v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Aas Mohammad and Another vs Union of India and Another

Pushpendra Singh @ Pushpendra Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Urmila Devi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Kumar Vishwakarma and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajeev Singh vs State of Up and 2 Others

Satish Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another