Allahabad High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Former MP & Brother Of Slain Dacoit 'Dadua' In A Cheating Case

The bench of Justice Samit Gopal also refused to quash the case against him registered under Sections 419, 420 and 406 of IPC by observing thus:

"…the prima facie allegations against the applicant, the law on the subject and the criminal antecedents of the applicant, this Court does not deem it proper to quash the proceedings in the 482 petitions as prayed for."

The case in brief

The allegations against Patel are that he cheated and committed fraud against one Ramakant Tripathi (first informant) and his 3 associates and duped him of Rs. 65 lakhs in the name of investing money in the sand business.

The first informant and his associates alleged that Patel did not return Rs. 65 lakhs and also stopped responding to their phone calls. It was also alleged that some unknown people came to the house of the first informant and gave a threat that he should forget the money given to Bal Kumar Patel otherwise it will not be good for him.

Finally, Tripathi filed an FIR against Patel pursuant to which the court took cognizance of the same. Challenging the same and seeking anticipatory bail, Patel moved to the High Court.

The State opposed the Section 482 petition and the anticipatory bail application and argued that the applicant is named in the FIR and there are allegations against him and there has been misrepresentation on behalf of the applicant and he was actively involved in the conversation due to which money was transferred in his account.

It was also argued that there was mens rea on his part and the applicant had not cooperated in the investigation as is apparent from the case diary and in the investigation, credible evidence has been found against him.

On the other hand, the Accused argued that the first information report has been lodged under a misconception and the deal between the first informant and his friends and relatives with the applicant and co-accused was a business transaction and there was no offer and assurance given by the applicant either to the first informant or his associates.

High Court's observations

At the outset, the Court observed that at the stage of quashing, only the material of the prosecution has to be seen and the court cannot delve into the correctness of the allegations or the defence of the accused and then proceed to examine the matter on its merit by weighing the evidence so produced.

Having heard the state, informant, and the accused, the Court noted that the allegations prima facie show active participation of the applicant along with the co-accused while dealing with the first informant and his associates. Therefore, the Court found no ground to quash the proceedings.

In so far as the anticipatory bail application was concerned, the Court concluded that the accused could not make out a case for pre-arrest bail by noting thus:

"...looking to the facts and circumstances of the case cumulatively that the applicant was a public representative earlier, the fact that he was involved earlier in many criminal cases, the non-cooperation by him in the investigation by not making himself available at the call of the Investigating Officer, the recorded fact of transfer of money in his bank account, the allegation of the applicant misrepresenting the first informant right from the inception of the talks, the allegation of threat being extended to the first informant by the henchmen of the applicant, the evidence as collected after which the investigation being concluded by filing a charge-sheet against the applicant and co-accused and as such the case being prima facie proved."

Case title - Bal Kumar Patel Alias Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 524

Click here To Read/Download Order