The High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed seeking protection against arrest in a case involving cutting of an ATM machine door. The court noted the applicant's involvement in multiple similar cases and found no fit case for interference.
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. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 17616 of 2021
Applicant :- Rukmudeen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
The anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Rukmudeen , seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Case Crime No. 514 of 2021, under Sections 457/380/511 IPC, Police Station Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is not named in the First Information Report. It is argued that the name of the applicant has been disclosed in the present matter in the statement of co-accused Ansar, Shahid and Imran who were arrested and there were certain recoveries from their possession. It is argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no credible evidence against the applicant. Learned counsel has further argued that the applicant has not been convicted in any offence. Para 17 of the affidavit in support of the anticipatory bail application has been placed before the Court. While placing para 13, it is argued that the applicant was falsely implicated in one other case in which he has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 1.09.2021 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar. It is argued that the implication of the applicant is false and there is no direct or indirect evidence against the applicant to connect him.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and argued that the present case is a case in which an ATM Machine which was locked in a room outside the bank was cut after cutting of the door of the same. It is further argued that the applicant is involved in five cases including the present one. The reference of the other four cases is in the instructions received by him and also in the order dated 17.08.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Gautam Budh Nagar in the anticipatory bail of the
applicant which has been rejected. It is argued that even the previous case in which the applicant has been granted anticipatory bail and has been referred in para 13 relates to an identical matter in which an ATM Machine was cut by a gas cutter. It is argued that as such the implication of the applicant is there in the present case.
After having heard the counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the matter is of cutting of the door of the room and then cutting of the ATM machine by a gas cutter. The previous case being Case Crime No. 255 of 2021, District Gautam Budh Nagar is also a case of identical nature. There are three other cases against the applicant in which he is involved. I do not find a fit case for interference.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .
Order Date :- 2.12.2021 M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant who is alleged to be falsely implicated in a case involving cutting of an ATM machine door.
Whether the applicant is solvent by virtue of not being named in the FIR and lack of direct or indirect evidence connecting him to the offence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rukmudeen
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
