Court rejected anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by Danish facing charge under Sections 420 and 409 IPC. Court held applicant jointly involved in offense and investigation needs freedom.
Anticipatory bail 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. - 5817 of 2021
Applicant :- Danish Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chetan Chatterjee,Amit Kumar Verma,Ch. Dil Nisar,Krishna Gopal,Vinay Prakash Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material on record.
The instant application is being moved by the applicant invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime no.0161 of 2018, under Sections 420, 409 I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali Mandi, 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 below.
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) 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. "
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.
Learned A.G.A has submitted that the FIR was lodged by Sri Krishnapal Singh, Junior Engineer under sections 420 and 409 IPC against two accused persons including the applicant. The applicant is only a Computer Operator in the concerned department. As per FIR, the entire tirade of the allegation is against the co-accused Mustqeem.
I have gone through the FIR and as per FIR, it is the joint venture between both the accused persons and the role of the applicant in the commission of the offence cannot be ruled out.
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 :- 27.7.2021/Sumit S
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant apprehending arrest under Sections 420, 409 IPC should be entertained.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶10
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Danish
State of U.P.
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
