Dismissed

Yogendra Kumar Gupta and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2021ABAIL/11452/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad examined whether to grant relief to applicants facing arrest in a prosecution for cheating and forgery. Considering applicants' criminal antecedents and the gravity of offences, the Court rejected the application to allow full investigation.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application is rejected.

Yogendra Kumar Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11452 of 2021 Applicant :- Yogendra Kumar Gupta And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶4

Heard Shri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants; Shri Anupam Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

¶5

By means of the present anticipatory bail application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. the applicants namely Yogendra Kumar Gupta, Meera Gupta and Mukul Gupta, who are apprehending their arrest are seeking their anticipatory bail in connection with Case Crime No.173 of 2021, under Sections-420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 506, 120-B IPC, P.S.- Sector-24, NOIDA, District- Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶6

From the record, it is evident that the applicants have approached this Court straightaway without their anticipatory bail rejected from the Court of Session.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of the Court to Clause-7 of Section 438 Cr.P.C. (U.P. Act No.4 of 2019), which read thus :

¶8

" (7) If an application under this section has been made by any person to the High Court, no application by the same person shall be entertained by the Court of Session. "

¶9

After interpreting the aforesaid clause it is clear that the Legislature in its wisdom bestowed two avenues open for the accused. If the accused has chosen to come to the High Court straightaway, then he would not be relegated back to exhaust his remedy before the Court of Session first.

¶10

Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P. , hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

¶11

The applicants are said to be indulged into number of misfeasance in shell company and they have got criminal antecedents of seven cases. Taking into account the gravity of offence, the Court feels that in order to have indepth probe into the matter, the Investigating Officer of the case should be given fullest liberty to choose its own course for the transparent investigation. Thus, giving a panoramic view of the matter the Court is not inclined to exercise its powers in favour of the applicants, and thus the present anticipatory bail application is hereby REJECTED.

¶12

Order Date :- 18.8.2021 M. Kumar

¶13

Digitally signed by RAHUL CHATURVEDI Date: 2021.08.18 18:22:18 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yogendra Kumar Gupta and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Kumar Gupta and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Rizwan Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mantu Rauniyar Vs State of U.P.

Smt Atavaari Devi Vs State of U.P. and Anohter

Mahim Chandra Bhurji Vs State of U.P. and Another