Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J. rejected anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. relied on P. Chidambaram, directed surrender by 15.09.2021 for bail consideration, and ordered no arrest till surrender.
Direction to surrender before court concerned on or before 15.09.2021; no arrest of the applicant till the date of surrender.
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. - 13619 of 2021
Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash,Apoorv Tiwari,Raj Kumar Yadav 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.0023 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 472 I.P.C., Police Station-Belhar Kalan, District-Sant Kabir Nagar.
From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court after getting his anticipatory bail rejected by the court below on 08.06.2021.
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 A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P.Amendment) is not required.
Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is a Gram Panchayat Adhikari. There is misfeasance of the government property by playing fraud of Rs.92,642/- as a labour charge. The applicant is the signatory as Gram Panchayat Adhikari.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of allegation and also relying upon the judgement of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198 , the applicant cannot be dissolved from his liability and therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary power in favour of the applicant under section 438 Cr.P.C.
However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, if the applicant surrenders before the court concerned on or before 15.09.2021 and apply for bail, the same shall be adjudicated and decided by the court below in accordance with law as early as possible.
Till the date of surrender, the applicant shall not be arrested in connection with Case Crime no.0023 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 472 I.P.C., Police Station-Belhar Kalan, District-Sant Kabir Nagar.
With the aforesaid observations, the present application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.8.2021 Sumit S
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be granted to the applicant apprehending arrest for alleged fraud involving government property.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of EnforcementFollowed¶10
AIR 2019 SC 4198 · Who else cites this
Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶8
Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Vs. State of U.P. u/o Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajesh Kumar Pandey
State Of U.P.
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
