Partly allowed

Anil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2024CRLP/820/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging anticipatory bail conditions. The court excluded the petitioner from arrest pending investigation unless new evidence emerges of his involvement in the alleged offences, distinguishing his position from an earlier owner's bail application.

What did the court decide?

Direction not to arrest the petitioner unless sufficient and cogent evidence of involvement in the offences is collected during investigation.

Anil Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 820 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Chaturvedi,Arun Kumar Dwivedi,Vikas Vikram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

On 06.02.2024 the following order had been passed by this Court:-

¶7

"Heard.

¶8

The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that he had a prior agreement to sell with the owner of the property in question and he had also initiated suit proceedings for specific performance on 05.10.2016 wherein on 28.12.2016 status quo order was passed and it is the said property which was sold off by the owner Pappu etc. to the informant on 23.11.2016, therefore, there is no way that the petitioner is in any manner involved in the commission of the offence and his name has been dragged only with intent to give colour to the entire story otherwise there is no evidence of any offence having been committed by the petitioner herein who is himself aggrieved against the owner. The contention is that the petitioner's case is different from that of Pappu the accused and owner of the property whose writ petition bearing No. 395 of 23024 has already been dismissed.

¶9

Let the learned A.G.A. seek instructions in the matter as to what is evidence available against the petitioner as of now as the F.I.R. is of 10.10.2020.

¶10

List/ put up on 09.02.2024 as fresh."

¶11

Today, Shri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. says that he has instructions to inform the Court that involvement of the petitioner is being found, however, he is unable to spell out as to what is the evidence collected, if any, as of now pointing towards the involvement of the petitioner in commission of the offence, especially, in view of the case of the petitioner as recorded in our above quoted order.

¶12

In continuation of what has already been recorded in the above quoted order it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant has put in appearance in the suit filed by the petitioner on 20.10.2016 and thereafter, status quo order was passed by the Civil Court. The informant's

¶13

application under Section 151 CPC for impleadment was allowed against which the matter went up to the High Court wherein an interim order was passed stopping the construction being undertaken by the informant. This order was passed on 22.09.2020. Thereafter, the F.I.R. has been lodged by the informant on 10.10.2020 and the petitioner has been falsely roped in the matter.

¶14

Issue notice to the opposite party no. 4.

¶15

Let counter affidavit be filed by the opposite parties within a period of six weeks.

¶16

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶17

List thereafter.

¶18

Until further orders it is provided that the petitioner shall not be arrested in Case Crime No. 0742 of 2020, under Section 147, 148, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- PGI, District- Lucknow, unless there is sufficient and cogent evidence available against the petitioner indicating commission of any offence by him as alleged in the impugned FIR.

¶19

It is made clear that if during investigation involvement of the petitioner is found in commission of the offence, then, it is open for the Investigating Officer to proceed against the petitioner.

¶20

(Narendra Kumar Johari,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 9.2.2024 R.K.P.

¶22

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

Anil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prabhakar Pandey and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Others

Baichne Chauhan (Bachne) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Others

Mahendra Pratap Singh and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Others

Pramod vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Others

Prabhakar Pandey and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Others

Brijesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Others