Dismissed

Deepak Bhargawa v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Aug 2021ABAIL/6203/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by Deepak Bhargawa in a cheating and forgery case. The judge found no fit case for anticipatory relief, noting investigation indicated the applicant initiated negotiations and received funds, involving government land in a conspiracy. A courtesy reminder was issued regarding the applicability of these observations on merits.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed.

Deepak Bhargawa Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6203 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Deepak Bhargawa Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Subhash Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

IInd Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 26 of 2021, under Sections – 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station - Kotwali, District – Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Claim is that in this case, a belated F.I.R. after fourteen years say in 2021 has been lodged, that too at a stage when the cancellation of the agreement in question dated 17.10.2007 was required to be cancelled by the applicant in the competent court of law, papers regarding the same have been placed on record, vide second supplementary affidavit filed in support of the application. Applicant is nothing in the said agreement and he is the owner of the property in question. It so happened that an agreement was entered into between the informant and the brother of the applicant, wherein the property concerned was required to be sold. However, the applicant had nothing to do with the offence in question but it so happened that property of the applicant itself was involved in the agreement, due to which the suit for cancellation of the agreement was filed. In case, the applicant is not protected, he will be arrested and great humiliation will be caused to him.

¶9

While retorting to the aforesaid submission/argument raised by leaned counsel for the applicant, it has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned A.G.A. that here in this case, it was found after due investigation and on inquiry that the land in question was not the subject matter of any sale or agreement and the role of the applicant was that he initiated the negotiation and obtained the cheque and the money for lakhs of rupees and handed over the same to his brother. Therefore, connivance of

¶10

both the, applicant and his brother is very much perceptible. So far as the nature of the land is concerned, the Secretary of State is also second party in the case. Therefore, a government land was tried to be sold out and legal rights were tried to be created, therefore, a clear cut case of conspiracy is made out.

¶11

I have considered the entirety of this case and under prevailing facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be reasonable to express any opinion on the merit of the case. However, so far as the protection point is concerned, I do not find it a fit case for granting anticipatory relief. In case, the applicant has any grievance, he may seek regular bail before the appropriate forum. No good ground is made out for anticipatory bail.

¶12

Consequently, the instant anticipatory bail application is dismissed .

¶13

It is made clear that observation made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

¶14

Order Date :- 11.8.2021 S Rawat

Deepak Bhargawa v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Bhargawa 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhopal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Farman and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Afaq Husain Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kurmi @ Dabang @ Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Neelam Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Satendra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Anothers