In this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court considered a plea for anticipatory bail regarding alleged cyber forgery. The Court rejected the application to allow thorough investigation by the Cyber Cell.
Anticipatory bail application rejected.
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. - 13924 of 2021
Applicant :- Dilip Saroj Opposite Party :- State Of U,P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manvendra Nath Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Sri Manvendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
The present anticipatory bail application initially was registered as case crime no. 1112 of 2019, under Section 420 IPC and Section 66 Information and Technology (Amended) Act,2008, P.S. Surajpur, District Gautam Budha Nagar.
The instant anticipatory bail application is being filed by the applicant aggrieved by the order dated 23.11.2020 by which learned trial court has rejected his anticipatory bail application. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application.
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.
The matter relates to cyber crime and would be thoroughly investigated by the Cyber Cell of the police and would be implicated all the persons, who are involved in the forgery.
Taking into account the role attributed to the applicants 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 applicant, and thus the present anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected .
Order Date :- 29.7.2021
Tamang
Digitally signed by Justice Rahul Chaturvedi Date: 2021.07.31 15:04:56 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant in the facts and circumstances of the case involving alleged cyber forgery.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶8
Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Vs. State of U.P.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dilip Saroj
State Of U,P
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
