Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19709 of 2018 Applicant :- Ravi Kumar @ Ravindra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
By means of present 482 Cr.P.C. application, the applicant has prayed for a direction to the court below to consider and accept the same bail bond or fresh bail bond in Case Crime No. 1420 of 2016 in added Section 420 I.P.C., Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad and dispose of the bail application of the applicant in newly added sections expeditiously, if possible on the same day.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the main allegation is against one Rajkumar who is described as a property dealer who had introduced the opposite party no.2 to the present applicant by describing as the loan agent.
It is thus submitted that while the police has exonerated the said Rajkumar and the entire claim has wrongly been put on the present applicant though he had acted only as a loan agent and had applied for the loan which was not granted by the bank. However, at present in view of the amount stated to have been received by the present applicant and also in view of the nature of allegation made wherein the allegation appears to have been made both against the Rajkumar and the applicant, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the present applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier the applicant was granted bail by the competent court on 13.12.2016, under Section 406 I.P.C. passed in Case Crime No. 1420 of 2016. Thereafter a report has been submitted by the police by which Section, 420 I.P.C. has been added.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. N.C.T., Delhi & another reported in 2001 (4) SCC 280, the prayer made in the present 482 Cr.P.C. application cannot be granted. Hence the same is hereby refused.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 45 days and no more, from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of. Order Date :- 30.5.2018 Mini