Single judge rejected a second bail application contending faulty investigation and conspiracy in a cheque-related examination case involving IPC sections.
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. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9330 of 2019
Applicant :- Arvind Bhargav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Singh Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Om Narain Tripathi, learned A.G.A.-I assisted by Sri Bhanu Prakash Singh and Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned brief holders for the State and perused the material available on record.
This is second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.1.2019.
By way of the instant application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0442 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 505(1) kh I.P.C., Section 66 I.T. Act and Section 5/10 U.P. Examination Act, 1998, Police Station Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi.
Fresh ground urge in support of this second bail application is that the printing of the B.T.C. paper in question was not done at the press of the applicant. Ashish Agarwal and Ram Bahadur Singh both conspired in between them and have created false picture against the applicant. Investigation is faulty, the same was not made by Deputy Superintendent of Police. Statement of various aspirants for B.T.C. who appeared in the examination on record shows that photocopy of the B.T.C. papers were given to them. Statement of Ram Bahadur Singh and Ashish Agarwal brought on record is indicative of fact that one set paper was given by Ashish Agarwal to the supervisor of the pressRam Bahadur Singh for getting the same xe-roxed. Applicant at the relevant point of time was avail in Gujrat State and was not available in Uttar Pradesh.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently contended that in this case complicity of the applicant is very much proved by perusal of the statement brought on record, page no.24 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant himself that at the relevant point of time when instructions were given to Ram Bahadur Singh by Ashish Agarwal, the applicant was also present and this is second bail application, entire merit has already been considered, wherein it has been categorically held and see that the printing of the B.T.C. paper in question was done at the press of the applicant himself.
Considered the rival submissions and considered the fresh grounds and the reply given by the learned A.G.A., no good ground is made out for bail.
Accordingly, the second bail application is rejected .
The observation so made in the body of this order shall not prejudice proceeding of the trial court while deciding the case on merit.
Order Date :- 8.5.2019 S Rawat
1 issue framed by the court
Whether any fresh ground is made out to grant bail in the light of claims that the printing of the question paper was done by conspirators, not the applicant.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Arvind Bhargav
Arvind Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Arvind Kumar Mishra
Parties & counsel
