Bhola Singh vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. The Court considered the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, including the nature of the offence, the role of the applicant, the likelihood of influencing the investigation or tampering with evidence, and the possibility of absconding, as laid down in Sushila Aggarwal and Siddharth. The Court noted that a co-accused had been granted anticipatory bail and, significantly, that the entire loan amount had been repaid. It was also brought to the Court's notice that the applicant was cooperating with the investigation. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court found it to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail until the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions including availability for interrogation, not inducing witnesses, and depositing his passport if he has one.

Facts

The applicant, Bhola Singh, sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in a case registered under Sections 420, 467, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Kaushambi, District Ghaziabad. The FIR alleged that the applicant procured forged signatures of the informant, used his Aadhar card, Pan card, and GST papers to obtain a bank loan. The informant discovered the fraud and lodged the FIR on May 24, 2023. The applicant claimed innocence, stating he was falsely implicated, no forged documents were prepared by him, and the informant was the guarantor. He further submitted that the entire loan amount had been repaid, a co-accused (Branch Manager) was granted anticipatory bail, he has no criminal history, and is cooperating with the investigation, negating the need for custodial interrogation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations of fraud, forgery, and criminal conspiracy, considering the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant contended that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He argued that no forged documents were prepared by him, and the informant was the guarantor for the loan. Crucially, he submitted that the entire loan amount has been repaid, rendering the dispute moot. He also highlighted that a co-accused, the Branch Manager, has already been granted anticipatory bail. Furthermore, the applicant asserted his cooperation with the investigation and his lack of criminal history, suggesting no need for custodial interrogation. He relied on the principles of personal liberty and the judicious exercise of the power to arrest as articulated in Supreme Court judgments. Revenue's Arguments: The learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.