Dismissed

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2020ABAIL/1735/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court examined allegations of misappropriation of electricity dues. After considering the FIR, the rejection of bail below, and the seriousness of the offence, the court held that no case for bail was made out and rejected the application.

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was rejected.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1735 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Babboo Ram,Pradeep Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri B.R. Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Yadav, counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 29 of 2020, under Section 409 IPC, Police Station Garh Mukateshwar, District Hapur with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶7

I have perused the FIR as well as the order by means of which the anticipatory bail application has been rejected by the court below.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is wholly innocent and has not committed any offence whatsoever. According to the allegation made in the F.I.R., the applicant was appointed as cash collector in the electricity department and his duty was to collect electricity dues from the customers. he has argued that infact the period i.e. 8.10.2018 to 28.3.2019 during which the applicant is stated to have collected dues about Rs. 26 lacs from the customers and same was not deposited in the department is falsified from the fact that the applicant was infact included in the raiding party constituted by the Executive Engineer vide order dated 30.7.2018 and was continuously part of it. He has further argued that infact there is no evidence that any collection was made by the applicant to the tune of Rs. 26 lacs.

¶9

Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail with the contention that the applicant is involved in huge scam along with associate in collecting huge amount of 26 lacs towards the electricity dues from the customers and there is evidence that same was not deposited by him and also misappropriate the same and looking to the gravity of offence, no case for grant indulgence is made out.

¶10

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the impugned FIR and also looking to the seriousness of the allegation as made in the FIR, gravity of offence and the severity of punishment and the fact as advanced by the learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.

¶11

Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected.

¶12

Order Date :- 18.2.2020 Dhirendra/

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Diwakar Kasaudhan Vs State of U.P.

Rajkumar Vs State of U.P.

Khajan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P.

Manjoor Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Aakash @ Prakash Vs State of U.P.