Dismissed

Durga Prasad Dubey and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2021ABAIL/5679/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court rejected the plea of the applicants appearing directly before the High Court. The Court noted the serious nature of their alleged role and the need for a thorough investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected; liberty not granted due to seriousness of role and investigation needs.

Durga Prasad Dubey and Another Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5679 of 2021 Applicant :- Durga Prasad Dubey And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kr Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushil Kumar Pandey

¶2

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material on record.

¶4

The instant application is being moved by the applicants invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending their arrest in connection with Case Crime no.196 of 2019, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Colonelganj, District-Kanpur Nagar.

¶5

From the record, it is evident that the applicants have approached this Court straightway without getting their anticipatory bail rejected from the court below.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of the Court to Clause-7 of Section 438 Cr.P.C. (U.P. Act No.4 of 2021), which read thus :

¶7

" (7) If an application under this section has been made by any person to the High Court, no application by the same person shall be entertained by the Court of Session. "

¶8

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 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Vs. 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.

¶9

Learned A.G.A has submitted that the role attributed to the applicants are serious in nature and they deserves no liberty.

¶10

Taking into account the role attributed to the applicants in commission of offence, the Court feels that in order to have in-depth probe into the matter, the Investigating Officer of the case should be given fullest liberty to choose its own course for the transparent investigation.

¶11

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 .

¶12

Order Date :- 23.9.2021/Sumit S

¶13

Digitally signed by RAHUL CHATURVEDI Date: 2021.09.27 11:41:45 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Durga Prasad Dubey and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durga Prasad Dubey and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhupendra Chaudahry @ Bholu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pravez Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Vs State of U.P

Shani Singh @ Shani Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another