The court rejected an application for anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of cheating and forgery related to job promises. The court held that the pernicious nature of the crime and presence of multiple victims precluded granting bail.
Application for anticipatory bail rejected.
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. - 55400 of 2019
Applicant :- Nempal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ramesh Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri I.P. Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri R.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.
The present application for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed by the applicants in case crime No.361 of 2019, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Chhajlet, District- Moradabad.
The Court finds no ground to accord the facility of anticipatory bail to the applicants bearing in mind the pernicious nature of the crime which has allegedly been committed and of which many instances are coming to the fore in present times. The allegation is of moneys having been extorted on the promise of jobs being provided to the informant. It is alleged that the applicants handed over appointment letters which were forged and when the informant went to the office, he found that no such employment had been granted or accorded to him. Additionally the Court notes from the supplementary affidavit filed that applicant no.2 is stated to be a contractor, which again raises grave doubt over the defence which is presently proffered. The Court is further apprised that not just the informant but various other individuals were also duped by the applicants. Since the aforesaid facts would merit further investigation, the Court finds no ground to accord the facility of anticipatory bail to the applicants
Consequently, the application is rejected .
Order Date :- 20.12.2019 Vivek Kr.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to applicants in a case involving alleged cheating and forgery involving job promises.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nempal and Another
State of U.P.
Yashwant Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
