SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SAMIT GOPAL, J.
Bal Kumar Patel Alias Raj Kumar - Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Respondents
Application U/S 482 No. 10778 of 2022 With Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. 8945 of 2020
Decided On : 09-12-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Mr. Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun.
For the Respondents:Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Additional Government Advocate, Mr. Jitendra Prasad Mishra.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 482 and 438 - The applicant sought to quash proceedings against him under Sections 419, 420, and 406 IPC due to alleged fraud involving investment in a nonexistent sand business, asserting the matter was a private dispute - A history of 27 criminal cases against the applicant was revealed, with the State opposing both the quashing application and anticipatory bail on grounds of non-cooperation and credible evidence - The court, after examining the allegations and evidence, ruled that the charges against the applicant were substantiated and dismissed both applications. (Paras 19, 28, 29)

(B) Criminal History - The court criticized the misrepresentation concerning the applicant's criminal history in prior affidavits, underlining the importance of complete disclosure to ensure justice. (Paras 30, 32)

(C) Anticipatory Bail - The provisions under Section 438 are to be interpreted liberally, but the applicant's prior involvement in significant criminal activities weighed against granting bail. (Paras 25, 27)

Facts of the case:
The applicant was accused of fraudulently taking money under false pretenses related to a sand business venture, failing to deliver on the assurances made to several investors.

Findings of Court:
The proceedings were supported by credible evidence and the applicant's extensive criminal history indicated a pattern of behavior that warranted denial of both the quashing and anticipatory bail applications.

Issues: Whether the allegations constituted a viable criminal case and if the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail considering his history.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that procedural integrity must be upheld, and any misleading statements regarding criminal history by state officials raise serious concerns about the administration of justice.

Result: Both the 482 petition and the anticipatory bail application were rejected.

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun, Advocate learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the records.

2. These two petitions are connected together as they relate to the same case and are of the same accused and as such are being decided by a common order.

3. Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as “the 482 petition”) has been filed by the applicant-Bal Kumar Patel @ Raj Kumar with the following prayers:-

    “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this application and quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 02 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 0831 of 2020 under Sections 419, 420 and 406 I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali Nagar District Banda on which cognizance was taken up on 2.11.2021 following the submission of charge sheet against the applicant on 29.9.2021 by the police of Police Station Kotwali Nagar District Banda and also further be pleased to pass an interim order in favour of the applicant, granting protection from arrest by directing the investigative authorities not to take any coercive action against him; so that justice be done.

    3. That it is further prayed that during the pendency of the present criminal misc. application, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 02 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 0831 of 2020 under Sections 419 , 420 and 406 I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali Nagar District Banda on which cognizance was taken up on 2.11.2021 following the submission of charge sheet against the applicant on 29.9.2021 by the police of Police Station Kotwali Nagar District Banda may remain stayed and also further be pleased to pass an interim order in favour of the applicant, granting protection from arrest by directing the investigative authorities not to take any coercive action against him and / or be pleased fit and proper to pass such order as the Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case; so that justice be done.”

4. Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as “the anticipatory bail application”) has been filed by the applicant-Bal Kumar Patel @ Raj Kumar with the following prayers:-

    “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the application and direct that in the event of the applicant’s arrest in Case Crime No. 831 of 2020 u/s 419, 420 and 406 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda, he may be released on anticipatory bail.

    It is further prayed that during the pendency of this application before this Hon’ble Court the interim order be issued directing the P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Band (or any other investigating agency of the State of U.P.) not to apprehend the applicant in Case Crime No. 831 of 2020 u/s 419, 420 and 406 I.P.C., And/or may pass such other & further order as this Hon’ble Court, may deem, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

5. A counter affidavit dated 21.05.2021 has been filed in the anticipatory bail application which has been sworn by Mohammad Akram Sub-Inspector, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda. In the said counter affidavit paragraph 10 & 12 referred to the applicant having criminal history and thereby stating in both the paragraphs that he is a habitual criminal. Paragraph 10 & 12 of the said counter affidavit is quoted herein-below:-

    “10. That the contents of paragraph No. 14 of the affidavit are wrong and as such are denied. The true fact is that the applicant is named accused and man of habitual criminal and has long criminal history. Photostat copy of the criminal history of the applicant is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. C.A.1 to this affidavit.

    12. That the contents of paragraph No. 16, 17, 18

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top