Dismissed

Satish Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2021ABAIL/6827/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by Satish Kumar. The court noted the appeal straight to the High Court was valid under Clause 7 but rejected the prayer due to the nature of the case involving misappropriation and the necessity for custodial interrogation, dismissing the claim for bail.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application was rejected.

Satish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6827 of 2021 Applicant :- Satish Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava,Nayanshri T. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶4

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

¶5

The instant application is being moved by the applicant namely, Satish Kumar invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime no.26 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Nakur, District-Saharanpur.

¶6

From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court straightway without getting his anticipatory bail rejected from the court below.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant 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 :

¶8

" (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. "

¶9

After interpreting the aforesaid clause it is clear that the Legislature in its wisdom bestowed two avenues open for the accused. If the accused has chosen to come to the High Court straightaway, then he would not be relegated back to exhaust his remedy before the Court of Session first.

¶10

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 AGA as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P.Amendment) is not required.

¶11

Learned A.G.A has submitted that the applicant is a salesman in the company belongs to the informant. The next submission is

¶12

that being a sales representative, he used to sell the articles to different shopkeepers on credit and thereafter, collected the money from them. After collecting the money, he digested Rs.6,29,000/-. There is entrustment and its misappropriation of funds. The investigation is going on. Taking into account the allegations made in the FIR, the applicant deserves no relaxation.

¶13

The Court feels that in order to have in-depth probe into the matter, custodial interrogation is imperative. Learned A.G.A submits that instant case is not the case of false implication.

¶14

Thus, giving a panoramic view of the matter, the Court is not inclined to exercise its powers in favour of the applicant, and thus the present anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected .

¶15

Order Date :- 16.7.2021 Sumit S

Satish Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Vishal Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Janardan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.

Smt.Gulshan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vaibhav Tiwari @ Shivam Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Verma Vs State of U.P.