Dismissed

Smt. Bandana Ruidas v. State of U.P. Thourg Secretary Home

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2021ABAIL/19436/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. relating to FIR No. 30 of 2020 for cheating and forgery, noting the applicant failed to establish good grounds for bail despite claiming the mobile used was lost without producing an F.I.R.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed and rejected.

Smt. Bandana Ruidas Vs State of U.P. Thourg Secretary… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 19436 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Bandana Ruidas Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thourg Secretary Home Counsel for Applicant :- Shishir Kumar Dwivedi,Pankaj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in F.I.R. No.30 of 2020 dated 21.02.2020, under Sections 419 and 420 I.P.C. and 66D of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, P.S. Shivkuti, District Prayagraj.

¶7

It is alleged that the applicant gave phone call to the informer and allured cash back of Rs. 2525/- asked him to download ANYDRSK app when informer download this app the total Rs. 17,397/- were drawn from his account in four times.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has accepted that the mobile, which was used in requesting the informer to download the app belonged to the applicant, however, it is claimed that the mobile was lost but learned counsel for the applicant could not show the first information report lodged regarding loss of the mobile. It is also submitted that the applicant is ready to pay money of Rs.17,397/-.

¶9

After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and after perusing the averments made in the present anticipatory bail application as well as rejection order, this Court is of the opinion, that learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any good ground for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶10

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the applicant is, hereby, rejected .

¶11

Order Date :- 15.12.2021 Radhika

¶12

Digitally signed by Sadhna Rani Thakur Date: 2021.12.16 18:04:09 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Bandana Ruidas v. State of U.P. Thourg Secretary Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bandana Ruidas v. State of U.P. Thourg Secretary Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Asrey Vs State of U.P.

Javed Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Bahal Vs State of U.P.

Riyajul Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohit Vs State of U.P.

Tribhuwan Singh Vs State of U.P.