The High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application moved by Aryan Bhargav, who was apprehended to be arrested for cheating and forgery offences. The Court held that no prior report from the Investigating Officer was obtained and granted liberty for a transparent probe.
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. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12913 of 2021 Applicant :- Aryan Bhargav @ Kamlesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Suraj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material on record.
The instant application is being moved by the applicant invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime no.785 of 2020, under Sections 420, 409, 120B I.P.C. Police Station-Cantt., District-Varanasi.
From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court after getting his anticipatory bail rejected by the court below on 24.12.2020.
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 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Vs. State of U.P. , hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned AGA as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P.Amendment) is not required.
Learned A.G.A has submitted that the present FIR was registered by Nalneesh Ojha against the different office bearers of M/s Sunshine City Infra Project Private Ltd. The said company deals in the sell and purchase of different flats.
From the contents of the FIR, it is clear that number of investors have invested their hard earned money in the company and the company has fled away. The applicant is only a receptionist and the contention of the applicant is that the applicant has nothing to do with the internal matter of the company. All these things have to be thoroughly investigated during investigation
Taking into account the role attributed to the applicant in commission of offence, the Court feels that in order to have in-depth 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 .
Order Date :- 28.7.2021/Sumit S
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant apprehending arrest for offences under Sections 420, 409 and 120B IPC.
Whether the applicant's role as a receptionist in a defunct company warrants protection against arrest without investigation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶6
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Aryan Bhargav @ Kamlesh
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
