Allowed

Gabbar Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2024ABAIL/7910/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application filed by a constable accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court granted bail noting the implausibility of the alleged video evidence relative to the FIR date. The applicant is released on personal bond pending investigation or submission of police report.

What did the court decide?

Released on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties until the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. or order date, whichever is earlier.

Gabbar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:134676

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7910 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Gabbar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anjani Kumar Raghuvanshi,Sujan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sujan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Gabbar Singh, seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Case Crime No. 535 of 2024, under Section 7/13 The Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahar.

¶8

Prior notice of this anticipatory bail application was served in the office of the learned Government Advocate, High Court, Allahabad and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.: 8072 of 2020 - Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned State counsel as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required since learned counsel for the State informs the Court that he has received the required instructions in the matter.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is a Constable and he is posted in the Police Department since last eight years and has a clean and clear service record. It is submitted that the allegation of the first informant recording a video as alleged in the FIR of giving money to the applicant is false inasmuch as the First Information Report has been lodged on 21.06.2024 but the alleged video has been given to the Investigating Officer in a pendrive which is of 19.03.2024. It is submitted that the FIR has been lodged because of the reason that

¶10

the husband of the first informant made a complaint to the Circle Officer on 21.06.2024 against two persons including the applicant after which the present FIR has been lodged falsely. It is submitted while placing para 7 of the affidavit that the investigation of the present is still pending. It is submitted that no certificate as per Evidence Act has been given with regards to the said video. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 28 of the affidavit.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶12

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the alleged video which is stated to be captured when the incident happened but the same is not the alleged incident. The applicant is having no criminal antecedent. The investigation is still going on.

¶13

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant Gabbar Singh , involved in the aforesaid case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report whichever is earlier, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court 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 with the following conditions:-

¶15

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

¶16

(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 officer;

¶17

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶18

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶19

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶20

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶21

The anticipatory bail application is disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 22.8.2024 M. ARIF

¶23

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gabbar Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gabbar 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

Similar cases

Suresh Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Balram Yadav vs State of U.P.

Muzaffar and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

X Juvenile vs State of U.P. and Another

Pooja Pal Mla and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Shahid vs State of U.P.