Alok Singh Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:126178

Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4756 of 2025

Applicant :- Alok Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar,Manish Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 83 of 2019, under Sections 409, 406, 120-B IPC & Sections 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Jahanaganj, District Azamgarh, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was Managing Director in State Warehousing Corporation and as per allegation, he misused his position and sanctioned e-tender on higher rates but entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false.

¶9

He further submitted that during investigation, applicant challenged the FIR of the present case before this Court vide Criminal Misc. Writ Petiton No. 11014 of 2019 and Division Bench of this Court on 30.04.2019 was pleased to stay his arrest till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and order passed by Division Bench of this Court has been annexed at page no. 45 of the paper book. He further submitted that pursuant to the order dated 30.04.2019, applicant was not arrested during investigation.

¶10

He further submitted that there is no allegation that during investigation, applicant did not cooperate with the investigation.

¶11

He further submitted that now charge sheet has been filed and applicant is having apprehension, if he will appear before the court

¶12

concerned then he will be sent to jail.

¶13

He further submitted that after submission of charge sheet, custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear to be necessary.

¶14

He further submitted that therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Mahdoom Bava Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 SCC Online SC 299, applicant should be released on anticipatory bail.

¶15

Per contra, learned A.G.A. however, opposed the prayer but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶17

However, as per allegation, applicant being Managing Director of State Warehousing Corporation misused his position and sanctioned e-tenders on higher rates but it reflects, during investigation, his arrest was stayed by Division Bench of this Court and there is no allegation that during investigation, applicant did not cooperate with the investigation.

¶18

Further, now charge sheet has been filed and this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that after submission of charge sheet, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant.

¶19

Further, considering the general practice adopted by the courts now-a-days, apprehension of arrest raised by applicant cannot be completely ruled out.

¶20

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial.

¶21

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶22

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Alok Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding

¶23

Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶24

i. 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;

¶25

ii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶26

iii. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶27

iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶28

v. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶29

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶30

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶31

Order Date :- 29.7.2025 KK Patel

¶32

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Alok Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases