Allowed

Rajeshwar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Aug 2025ABAIL/889/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An 80-year-old former cooperative society secretary sought anticipatory bail in a 2001 FIR alleging 150 empty food grain sacks went missing under Sections 409 I.P.C./B.N.S. Noting the earlier arrest stay by a Division Bench, absence of criminal history, and advanced age, the court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, with conditions on availability for interrogation, no tampering/evidence inducement, no leaving India without permission

Rajeshwar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Cooperative Societies | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47630

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 889 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Rajeshwar Singh

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vishnu Kumar Srivastava,Shweta Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Vishnu Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant as well as Sri Abhay Kumar Singh, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.

¶8

The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No.03 of 2001 under Sections 409 I.P.C. B.N.S. registered at Police Station- Jalalpur, DistrictAmbedkar Nagar.

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 04.01.2001 stating that 150 empty sacks of food grains had gone missing while the applicant was working as Secretary, Sadhan Sehkari Samiti.

¶10

The applicant had sought quashing of the FIR by filing Writ Petition No.370 (MB) of 2001 and his arrest was stayed by means of an interim order dated 30.01.2001.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant did not get any information or summons after that and he has applied for anticipatory bail when he has received a non-bailable warrant.

¶12

Although it is mentioned in the order dated 22.05.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar rejecting the applicant's anticipatory bail application that proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant but as per the instructions provided to the learned AGA, no such proclamation has been issued against the applicant.

¶13

Meanwhile the applicant has attained the advanced age of 80 years.

¶14

In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent having no criminal history and he has been falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶15

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no disciplinary proceedings have been instituted against the applicant for the misconduct alleged in the FIR.

¶16

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the allegation levelled in the FIR lodged in the year 2001 is merely regarding 150 empty sacks of food grain having gone missing; a Division Bench of this Court had stayed the arrest of the applicant and that the applicant has no previous criminal history and presently the applicant has attained the advanced age of 80 years, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶17

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed . In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court :

¶18

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

¶19

(ii) that 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 or tamper with the evidence;

¶20

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.

¶21

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶22

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶23

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 14.8.2025 -Amit K-

¶25

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

Rajeshwar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeshwar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

Asif Naseem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Asif Naseem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Asif Naseem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rajeshwar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Vimal @ Vimal Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Nekiram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deppt. Home Lko.