The High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by Smt. Neelam Yadav, noting that the impugned FIR relates to a management dispute and required indepth probe by the investigating officer.
The present anticipatory bail application is 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. - 14286 of 2021
Applicant :- Smt.Neelam Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shobhit Pathak
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ranjeet Kumar Yadav,Saiyad Iqbal Ahmed
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Shri Shobhit Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
By means of the present application the applicant, Smt. Neelam Yadav is seeking her anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.163 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, I.P.C., Police Station-Katghar, District-Moradabad.
From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court after getting her anticipatory bail rejected from the Court of Session vide order dated 02.07.2021.
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 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.
The perusal of the FIR indicates that the dispute relates with regard to the management of the institution.
The investigation is going on and it would not be proper for the Court to interfere in the same.
Taking into account the role attributed to the applicant in commission 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.
Order Date :- 6.9.2021
AU
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail ought to be granted in the present case considering the role attributed to the applicant.
Whether the investigating officer should be given fullest liberty to conduct transparent investigation.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Neelam Yadav
State of U.P.
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
