The court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant regarding charges of online betting and syndicated cheating involving Paytm transactions. The investigation was ongoing and essential for deep probe, hence bail rejected.
No bail granted; 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. - 14538 of 2021
Applicant :- Ankush Nagpal @ Chhotu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Shri Pawan Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
By means of the present application the applicant, Ankush Nagpal @ Chhotu is seeking his anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.279 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 463, 467, 468, 471, 474, 34, 120-B I.P.C. and section 66D, 71 and 72 of Information (Amendment Act, 2008), Police Station-Kotwali, District-Saharanpur.
From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court straightway without getting his anticipatory bail rejected from the court of sessions.
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 applicant along with other co-accused were involved in online betting and paytm fraud.
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 should be granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given the applicant's involvement in online betting and cheque fraud.
Whether some indication of this case under Section 438(3) is required.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ankush Nagpal @ Chhotu
State of U.P.
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
