Allahabad High Court
S.P.Singh vs State Of U.P. on 4 January, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:1224
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13165 of 2022
Applicant :- S.P.Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bajrang Bahadur Singh,Satya Prakash Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
3. As per office report 20.12.2023, the complainant is not residing at the address given, but in the supplementary affidavit filed today, the order-sheet indicates that the complainant is regularly appearing in the said complaint case.
4. Heard Sri Satya Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
5. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Complaint Case No.34 of 2021 registered under Section 420 IPC at Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
6. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have entered into an agreement to sale dated 29.07.2009 for the property after a consideration of Rs.20 lakhs through cheques and the rest amount of Rs.21,85,000/- was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. Subsequently, on 15.10.2009, four cheques worth Rs.20 lakhs and cash amount of Rs.1,85,000/- are stated to have been paid to the complainant, but the said cheques got dishonored. The applicant is stated to have kept on dilly-dallying for payment of the said amount, as such the complainant could not institute an FIR against the applicant. Subsequently, on 26.08.2014, he filed the instant complaint case, as such the applicant has been summoned by the court concerned vide order dated 08.08.2016.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant had challenged the said summoning order by filing a petition U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.16796 of 2018 and the applicant was granted interim protection in it, but in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. and Another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2018 (16) SCC 299, the said stay has been vacated, but the said petition is still pending.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that prior to the institution of the instant complaint case, a cancellation suit for the sale deed was filed by the applicant as Original Suit No.1555 of 2013 and the complainant was granted no respite in the said petition. The applicant is the director of M/s Magpai Resourts Private Ltd., as such he has been made a party in the said original suit but he has been wrongly named as Surendra Pal Singh, although the name of the applicant is mentioned as S.P. Singh.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the matter of civil nature has been converted to criminal one by the complainant. Learned counsel has further stated that having failed to exercise his right under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the instant complaint case has been filed. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
11. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
12. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant-S.P.Singh be released forthwith in the aforesaid complaint case (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(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;
(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
13. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
Order Date :- 04.01.2024
Ravi Kant
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
