Praveen Kumar v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
The court rejected an anticipatory bail application regarding Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC and U.P. Upkhanij Rule 7. It held that a rent agreement was procured after the alleged crime date to mislead the court, and discharged interim protection previously accorded.
What did the court decide?
Anticipatory bail application rejected; interim protection earlier granted discharged.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44945 of 2019
Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Aqueeq Ahmad,Meraj Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri I.P. Srivasatva, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 1004 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467 468, 471 I.P.C. & 7 of U.P. Upkhanij (Parihar) Niyamawali, 1963, Police Station Sahibabad District- Ghaziabad with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
On 24 October 2019, the Court had accorded interim protection to the applicant taking into account the submission that although he was the owner of the vehicle, he had given it out on rent. Relevance was also placed on a rent agreement which was appended to the paper book. The respondents in their response have reiterated that it was the applicant who was the owner of the vehicle and was in charge of the entire transaction which related to the transport of sand in excess of the quantity disclosed in Form EMM-11. It is also stated that the applicant is not cooperating in the investigation of the case. More fundamentally, the Court notes that the rent agreement is stated to have been executed and attested on 18 January 2018. However, as is evident from the stamp paper, on which this agreement is embossed the original of which was produced and perused by the Court, it is manifest that the same was procured on 31 March 2018. There has consequently been a clear and deliberate attempt to mislead the Court.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the applicant has attempted to mislead the court regarding evidence authenticity.
Whether the applicant was in charge of the sand transport transaction despite rent agreement claims.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Praveen Kumar
Coram
Yashwant Varma
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · December
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/44945/2019
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court