This High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant, who was not named in the FIR but found complicit, noting his failure to cooperate with investigation as a reason for denying relief.
The application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was dismissed with no relief granted.
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. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2823 of 2022
Applicant :- Brijesh Singh Patel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Mishra,Neeraj Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Neeraj Singh Yadav, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Brijesh Singh Patel , in connection with Case Crime No.184 of 2020, under Sections- 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Kaushambi, District- Kaushambi.
At the very outset, learned A.G.A. contends that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. dated 30.11.2020 giving rise to this application for anticipatory bail, but his complicity has been found in the crime in question. Applicant has been avoiding the investigation. Accordingly, Investigating Officer has obtained nonbailable warrant against applicant.
Aforesaid fact has been concealed in the affidavit filed in support of application for anticipatory bail as applicant is not co-operating with the investigation. He does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. Reference has also been made by the following judgements of the Supreme Court in Prem Shankar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 955, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 171, Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8SCC 730 and State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Mohd. Sajid Husain, (2008) 1 SSC 2013 .
When confronted with above, learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record as well as complicity of accused and also judgement of the Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198 , this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C., present application for anticipatory bail is dismissed.
It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.4.2022 Saif
Digitally signed by SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN Date: 2022.04.13 16:30:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted given the applicant's concealment in the affidavit and obtaining of a nonbailable warrant.
Whether there are any exceptional grounds to exercise jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the present case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prem Shankar Prasad Vs. State of BiharReferred¶8
Prem Shankar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 955 · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep SharmaReferred¶8
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 171 · Who else cites this
Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)Referred¶8
Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8SCC 730
State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Mohd. Sajid HusainReferred¶8
State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Mohd. Sajid Husain, (2008) 1 SSC 2013
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of EnforcementReferred¶10
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Brijesh Singh Patel
State of U.P.
Rajeev Misra
Shaikh Saif Abdin
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
