This judgment rejects an anticipatory bail application filed by Munna under Sections 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving forgery and Cheating. The court, citing the gravity of the offences involving forged court orders, found no ground for granting bail.
The anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant is 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. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9946 of 2021
Applicant :- Munna Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Mall,Ravi Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant-Munna in Case Crime No. 326 of 2018, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Kasya, District Kushinagar.
F.I.R. has been lodged with the allegations that the applicant has prepared forged orders of various Courts and tried to get his name mutated in the revenue record., therefore the Deputy Collector has lodged a F.I.R. annexing various orders which were forged.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there is no clear allegation against the applicant and no attempt has been made by him to use the said orders, therefore a prima facie case for grant of the anticipatory bail is made out. 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.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayed of bail and has submitted that F.I.R. has been lodged by Deputy Collector annexing various forged orders and therefore no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out against the applicant.
Considering the submissions of both the sides, gravity of offence, I do not find any ground for giving benefit of anticipatory bail, hence the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant is rejected.
Regular bail application may be given before the appropriate forum and if such application is given, the court below shall consider and disposed of the bail application expeditiously and preferably on the same day in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 S.Ali
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted given the gravity of offences underSections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
Whether the allegations of forging court orders establish a prima facie case necessitating denial of bail.
Whether the applicant can avail anticipatory bail despite the gravity of the alleged offence.
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Munna
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
