Allahabad High Court
Om Prakash Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. ... on 30 May, 2024
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40983
Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1102 of 2024
Applicant :- Om Prakash Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Indu Prakash Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA for the State and perused the records.
2. The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in FIR No.0117 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 & 120B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that in terms of the FIR, the informant had given information that her brother-in-law had forged the Will of her father-in-law and had also withdrawn the money of Rs.2,80,000/- from the account of her husband by misusing the cheque books etc. As regards the applicant, it was stated that the brother-in-law of the informant was being helped by the present applicant who is father-in-law of the said accused. Apart from the said, there are no allegation against the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the main accused Dr. Rajeev Kumar Singh as well as the applicant had approached this Court by filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Application U/S 482 No.11316 of 2023 which was dismissed on 17.11.2023. The applicant now apprehends his arrest without there being any material to implicate the applicant. A supplementary affidavit was also filed wherein it was stated that the applicant is aged about 64 years and is suffering from cardiac ailments and is undergoing treatment at a hospital at Lucknow.
5. Learned AGA opposes the bail application by arguing that once the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was rejected, no case for anticipatory bail is made out in view of the allegations in the FIR. It is further objected by learned AGA that the applicant has directly approached this Court without approaching the trial court and in view of the law as explained by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti v. State of U.P. & Anr; 2020 (3) ADJ 575, the present bail application should be rejected and the applicant should be relegated to avail his remedies before the trial Court.
6. In response, learned counsel for the applicant argues that there is no such restriction placed by virtue of the judgment in the case of Ankit Bharti (supra), which, in turn, follows the judgment in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi); 2020 SCC Online SC 98. He draws my attention to the reference to the judgment of Sushila Aggarwal (supra) by the Full Bench.
7. Considering the objections raised by learned AGA, on perusal of the Full Bench judgement, there is no absolute bar in the High Court entertaining the anticipatory bail application; the discretion of entertaining or not entertaining vests with the High Court if there are any circumstances to exercise the said powers.
8. In the present case, admittedly, the applicant is undergoing treatment at a hospital at Lucknow, he is aged about 64 years, there are no material whatsoever alleged against the applicant in the FIR also, thus, considering the said facts, the applicant deserves the benefit of anticipatory bail. The present application for anticipatory bail is accordingly allowed.
9. In the event of arrest, let the applicant Om Prakash Singh be released on anticipatory bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.35,000/- each to the satisfaction of Court below concerned with the following conditions:
(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;
(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and
(c) 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.
(d) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
Order Date :- 30.5.2024
nishant
