Dismissed

Gaytri Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2021ABAIL/9756/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. held that while the applicant may deserve regular bail, the lack of an extraordinary situation and absence of any immediate threat of arrest arrested since the FIR (lodged nine months earlier) negated the requirements for anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipatory bail was rejected; however, the applicant was directed to have their regular bail application considered expeditiously if they surrender.

Gaytri Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9756 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Gaytri Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Arshad,Ghanshyam Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant Gaytri Devi in Case Crime No. 95 of 2020, under section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, P.S. Durgaganj, District Bhadohi.

¶7

The FIR version is that on complaint that the accused applicant, who is fair price shop dealer was not actually distributing the grain in the fair price shop and she is falsely showing that the grain has been distributed. Thereafter, an inspection was conducted in which grain which was available for more than which should have been in the fair price shop. Therefore, the FIR for the offence under Section 3/7 of E.C. Act was lodged.

¶8

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the excess grain was found because there was marriage in the family of the accused applicant, she has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history and applicant is prepared to furnish sureties and bonds, there is no possibility of her either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the evidence.

¶9

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail.

¶10

Considering the submissions of both the sides. The ground which has been taken in support of the anticipatory bail application may be a good ground for seeking regular bail before the appropriate forum but for seeking anticipatory bail something more is required. Firstly, the applicant was to show that there is an extraordinary situation and, therefore, she has sought anticipatory bail. There appears to be no such extraordinary situation in this matter. The applicant has to also show that there is immediate threat of her being arrested. It appears from the FIR that the same was lodged on 20.11.2020 and even after the expiry of more than nine months there is

¶11

nothing on record to show that any efforts has been made for the arrest of the applicant. Therefore, on both the grounds an application for anticipatory bail is rejected, hence the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant is rejected.

¶12

A direction is, however, given to the court below that in case, applicant surrenders and gives bail application, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously and preferably on the same day in accordance with law.

¶13

Order Date :- 18.8.2021 Mini

Gaytri Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaytri Devi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Verma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Amit @ Raki Yadav Vs State of Up and Another

Smt .Beena Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Chandra Shekhar Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Islam Vs State of U.P.

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