Amar Singh vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to anticipatory bail. The Court reasoned that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised only in suitable cases where interference is necessary to further the cause of justice and prevent the misuse of the process of law. The Court found that the applicant's receipt of a portion of the Rs. 55,000/- obtained through fraud was sufficient to indicate his complicity in the alleged conspiracy. Prima facie, the FIR did not appear to be lodged with the intent to humiliate or arrest the applicant mala fide. The Court explicitly stated that its observations in rejecting the anticipatory bail would not prejudice the trial judge's independent opinion. The application for anticipatory bail was rejected.

Facts

The applicant, Amar Singh, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Case Crime no. 45 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR alleged that the first informant was contacted by unknown persons who, on the pretext of transferring government money, obtained her bank account and Aadhaar details. Subsequently, she was induced to pay Rs. 4500/- as GST, and further amounts, totaling Rs. 55,000/-, were fraudulently obtained. The FIR stated that this money was deposited into the accounts of the applicant and one Niveshi Kumar. The applicant claimed innocence, stating he never contacted the victim and only Rs. 11,000/- was deposited in his account, which he was willing to return.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in light of the allegations of fraud and conspiracy. Arguments for the Applicant: The applicant contended that he is innocent, had no direct contact with the victim, and only a portion of the alleged fraudulent amount was deposited into his account. He expressed readiness to refund that specific amount. Arguments for the State (Revenue): The learned AGA opposed the bail application, arguing that the applicant's receipt of part of the fraudulently obtained money demonstrated his complicity in the conspiracy. They asserted that the applicant was named in the FIR and there was no evidence of false implication. The State emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and should not be used routinely or as a substitute for regular bail.