The Allahabad High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application of the applicant in a cheating case, holding that the investigation role attributed to the applicant precluded interference and necessitated a full probe by the IO.
The anticipatory bail application of the applicant was 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. - 14646 of 2021
Applicant :- Subhash Chandra Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Shri Dileep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
By means of the present application the applicant is seeking his anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.19 of 2021, under Sections 420, 406, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Hapurnagar, District-Hapur.
From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court after getting anticipatory bail rejected from the Court of Session vide order dated 01.07.2021.
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 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 :- 10.8.2021 Abhishek Sri.
Digitally signed by RAHUL CHATURVEDI Date: 2021.08.12 12:01:48 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant in a cheating case under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC.
Whether the role attributed to the applicant warrants the grant of anticipatory bail.
Subhash Chandra Pandey
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
