Dismissed

Pooran Lal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2024ABAIL/8861/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought anticipatory bail in an FIR involving cheating, forgery, attempt to murder and extortion over a failed property agreement. Citing his long criminal history with one case improperly explained, the court held it not a fit case and rejected the application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Pooran Lal vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:145431

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8861 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Pooran Lal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh,Syed Wajid Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 402 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 420, 467, 468, 471, 307, 386, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station- Bhuta, District- Bareilly, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

PROSECUTION STORY:

¶9

The informant is said to have got an agreement to sale of the property belonging to the co-accused persons, Sumit Agarwal, Satish Agarwal and Nitin Agarwal for a consideration of Rs.6,48,40,000/- and had given an advance of Rs. 1.5 crores to them. The agreements were executed on 08.12.2021 and 16.12.2021 respectively. Subsequently, one of the co-accused person is stated to have refused to execute the sale-deed of the said property and it was learnt by the informant that the said named three co-accused persons were hand in glove with each other and had duped him.

¶10

After delving further into the matter, it was revealed that father of the co-accused persons Sumit Agarwal, Satish Agarwal and Nitin Agarwal had already executed an agreement to sell to somebody else on 24.10.2013 and had also usurped the said amount. When the informant went to the said three co-accused persons, the applicants and other persons were also there and they fired at him with an intention to kill them. There are allegations of demand of ransom from him, as such, an amount of Rs. 1.5 crores have been usurped by the applicant and the other co-accused

¶11

persons in collusion with each other.

¶12

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT:

¶13

The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence.

¶14

The applicant has no role in the agreement entered into with the informant. He is allegedly shown to be present at the time when the main accused is stated to have opened fire at the informant.

¶15

The informant has not sustained any gun shot or any other injury.

¶16

The co-accused persons, namely, Shiv Kumar and Shyam Bihari @ Shyam Bihari Lal have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail having the case of similar footing by this Court vide order dated 03.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 4489 of 2024, as such, the applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶17

Criminal history of 14 cases assigned to the applicant has been explained by annexing their bail orders except one case i.e. Case Crime No.269 of 2009, u/s 307, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Baradari, District- Bareilly. It is argued that the applicant has been acquitted in the said case but the said order could not be fetched by him as the file of the same has been consigned to record.

¶18

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE LEARNED AGA:

¶19

The prayer for anticipatory bail has been opposed by stating that the arguments tendered at Bar pertain to regular bail application and cannot be agitated u/s 438 Cr.P.C. as the applicant has long criminal history of 14 cases of which one case i.e. Case Crime No. 269 of 2006 has not been explained properly. It is further argued that out of 14 cases, three cases are of murder and two cases are attempt to murder, as such, the applicant is not a person who can be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶20

It is also stated that the co-accused persons, who have been enlarged on anticipatory bail, have no criminal history to their credit and the said fact finds mentioned in para-6 of the order dated 3.5.2024.

¶21

CONCLUSION:

¶22

12. In Satpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2018) 13 SCC 813 , the

¶23

Supreme Court has held that the satisfaction of the court for granting protection under Section 438 CrPC is different from the one under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while considering regular bail. In Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana and another (2023) 8 SCC 181 , the Supreme Court has opined that the relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest.

¶24

A three Judge bench of the Supreme Court in Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla Vs. Smt. Anita Agarwal & others AIR 2021 SC 277 broadly demarcated the distinction between the considerations which guide the grant of anticipatory bail and regular bail. It stated that in Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan (1985) 2 SCC 597 , while setting aside an order granting anticipatory bail, this Court observed that the relevant considerations governing the court's decision in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 are materially different from those when an application for bail by a person who is arrested in the course of investigation as also by a person who is convicted and his appeal is pending before the higher court and bail is sought during the pendency of the appeal. Three situations in which the question of granting or refusing to grant bail would arise, materially and substantially differ from each other and the relevant considerations on which the courts would exercise its discretion, one way or the other, are substantially different from each other. It further stated that the judgement of the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 in para 31, Chandrachud, C.J. clearly drew the distinction between the relevant considerations while examining an application for anticipatory bail and an application for bail after arrest during investigation. In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. It was observed that "it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond". Some of the relevant

¶25

considerations which govern the discretion, noticed therein are "the nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and 'the larger interests of the public or the State', are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail".

¶26

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also taking into consideration the fact that there is long criminal history of the applicant and out of which one case has not been properly explained, I do not find it a fit case for granting the anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶27

In view of the above, the present anticipatory bail application is rejected .

¶28

Order Date:- 6.9.2024 Siddhant

¶29

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pooran Lal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Pooran Lal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adil Rana vs State of U.P. and Another

Aamir vs State of U.P. and Another

Sajid Alias Mainuddin Abbasi vs State of Up and Another

Jai Govind Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Baba Seth Alias Baba Khan vs State of U.P. and Another

Gopal Saxsena vs State of U.P. and Another