Dismissed¶14

Manoj Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secy. Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2025ABAIL/364/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Pankaj Bhatia J., order dated 10.4.2025 — anticipatory bail application u/S 438 CrPC (No. 364 of 2025) REJECTED. Key terms: anticipatory bail; cancellation of anticipatory bail (order dated 19.02.2025); marginal witness to sale deed; co-accused Vinayak Rai; receipt of approx. Rs.24 lakhs after sale deed; statement of account transactions between applicant and co-accused; charge sheet filed and cognizance taken; FIR Case Crime No.0411 of 2023 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC; liberty to apply for regular bail. No precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail refused; applicant granted liberty to apply for regular bail in accordance with law before the appropriate court. ¶14

Manoj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail refused; applicant granted liberty to apply for regular bail in accordance with law before the appropriate court.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0411 of 2023 after the cancellation of his earlier anticipatory bail. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

In view of the compelling circumstances and the evidence recorded, no good ground for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

On the material produced by the learned AGA, substantial amounts (approximately Rs.24 lacs) were received after execution of the sale deed, and the role of the applicant is beyond that of a marginal witness.

¶12

Key takeaways

The anticipatory bail application is rejected.ratio¶14
The applicant was afforded liberty to apply for regular bail in accordance with law before the appropriate court.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail, S.438 CrPC — second application after cancellation of earlier bail. The applicant (Manoj Singh), arraigned in Case Crime No.0411 of 2023 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, had earlier been granted anticipatory bail (interim order dated 25.01.2024, confirmed on 25.05.2024 till conclusion of trial) on the view that he was only a marginal witness to a sale deed executed by co-accused Vinayak Rai in favour of the informant; the bail was cancelled on 19.02.2025 on an allegation that it had been obtained by misleading the Court. On the present application, the Court noted that the charge sheet stood filed and cognizance taken, and that the applicant relied on account transactions with the co-accused projecting repayment of money lent. However, on instructions and material produced by the learned AGA showing receipt of approximately Rs.24 lacs after execution of the sale deed, the Court held that the applicant's role was beyond that of a marginal witness. Finding compelling circumstances and no good ground for anticipatory bail, the Court rejected the application, leaving the applicant at liberty to apply for regular bail before the appropriate court.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20237

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 364 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Manoj Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Principal Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Sharma,Aakash Rai,Vaibhav Sharma

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Vikrant Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Shri Shaunak Singh, learned AGA-I for the State.

¶8

In the present case, the FIR in question was filed as Case Crime No.0411 of 2023, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

¶9

The applicant had earlier approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail, which was numbered as CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C No.128 of 2024. This Court vide order dated 25.01.2024 had granted anticipatory bail observing that the applicant was only a marginal witness of the sale deed, which was executed by coaccused Vinayak Rai in favour of the informant. Subsequent to the passing of the said interim bail, this Court came to pass an order on 25.05.2024, whereby the interim order dated 25.01.2024 was confirmed and the applicant was granted anticipatory bail till the conclusion of the trial. The said order was also passed on the arguments that the applicant was a marginal witness. Subsequently, a bail cancellation application was filed, in which, it was alleged that the anticipatory bail was obtained by misleading this Court by stating that he was only a marginal witness, whereas the money was transferred in the account of the accused, the applicant herein. On the said application, an order of cancellation came to be passed on 19.02.2025. After the said cancellation order, the present application has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶10

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the charge sheet has already been filed and cognizance has been taken by the trial court and the applicant is cooperating with the trial. He argues, on the basis of the documents filed, that in between the applicant and co-accused, several transactions of money being exchanged are evidenced from the statement of account filed by the applicant for the year 2019-20. He thus

¶11

argues that on account of the money lent by the applicant to the co-accused, the same was returned, which is now being projected as part of the sale consideration received from the informant by the co-accused Vinayak Rai, which is incorrect.

¶12

A perusal of the statement of account, as reveals that several huge transactions of money took place in between the applicant and co-accused. The instructions produced by the learned AGA demonstrate that after the execution of the sale deed in question, in which the applicant claims to be only a marginal witness, substantial amounts have been received, which are approximately Rs.24 lacs. Considering the material shown by the learned AGA, it is clear that the role of the applicant is beyond that of the marginal witness.

¶13

In view of the compelling circumstances and the evidence recorded above, no good ground for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶14

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.

¶15

The applicant would be at liberty to apply for regular bail in accordance with law before appropriate court.

¶16

Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Ashutosh

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manoj Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kunwar Surendra Singh Vs Civil Judge (J.D.) Distt. Rae Bareily and 7 Others

Shatrughan @ Satrughan and 5 Others Vs Sri Chandra

Ram Milan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance,Lko. and 2 Others

M/S Trust Pharmacy,Lucknow Thru. Authorised Signatory Rajlaxmi Bhandari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax and Registration Lko. and 2 Others

M/S Shiv Sai Associates Thru.Proprietor Anurag Srivastava and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. and Another

Sharda Prasad @ Sharda Prasad Mishra Vs Jitendra Kumar Singh and Another