In a regular bail application under_SECTION 438 Cr.P.C., the Court examined allegations of false claims for accident compensation. Weighing the gravity of false prosecution and lack of credible bail grounds, the application was rejected.
Application for anticipatory bail under S. 438 Cr.P.C. 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. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2217 of 2022
Applicant :- Ikrar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kishore Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.200/2016, under Sections 193/419/420/467/468/471/120-B I.P.C., Police Station Hapur Nagar, District Hapur with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
The first information report of this case was lodged in pursuant to direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court (Lucknow Bench) in Civil Revision No.49/2015. It was alleged that the applicant has filed one claim petition before M.A.C.T. and another petition before Labour Commissioner, Ghaziabad alleging that on 29.02.2012 near Hapur (U.P.) he has sustained injuries in a motor accident and his foot was amputated but it was found that in fact the applicant has sustained injuries in an incident took place on 05.04.2009 in Rajasthan and in fact no incident has taken place on 29.02.2012 and thus, applicant has obtained compensation by showing a false incident of accident.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas, there is no credible evidence against him. The first information report of this case was lodged making false and baseless allegations. One
claim petition was filed on behalf of applicant before M.A.C.T. and another claim petition was filed on behalf of applicant before the Labour Commissioner, Ghaziabad regarding the injuries sustained by applicant on 29.02.2012 near Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad and both the Tribunals have awarded compensation after considering evidence on record. The said petitions were filed by Rakesh Kumar Advocate. Even, otherwise the main allegations are against co-accused Manoj, who has already been granted interim relief by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.04.2016, passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.7383/2016. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and that applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and argued that in fact the applicant has sustained injuries on 05.04.2009 in Kotputali, Jaipur in a train accident, wherein his foot was amputated but the alleged two claim petitions were filed by the applicant showing an absolutely false incident of accident and obtained compensation. It was pointed out that the first information report of this case was lodged on the direction, issued by Division Bench of this Court (Lucknow Bench), in Civil Revision No.49/2015.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations and all attending facts of the matter, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence the present application for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 11.8.2022 Neeraj
Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.08.16 11:53:18 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case alleging false claims for accident compensation filed based on an existing Civil Revision order.
Whether the apprehension of arrest is credible given the alleged falsity of the underlying petitions and the lack of criminal antecedents.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ikrar
State of U.P.
Raj Beer Singh
Neeraj Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
