Single-judge High bench rejected an anticipatory bail petition filed by Jagjeevan who faced a conspiracy charge for cheating in a TET examination. The court held that the organized nature of the offense and the gravity of the allegations precluded the grant of bail.
Application for anticipatory bail under S. 438 Cr.P.C. 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. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3733 of 2022
Applicant :- Jagjeevan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Pradeep Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ankit Srviastava, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant- Jagjeevan in Case Crime No. 37 of 2022, under Sections 407, 408, 409, 420, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 4/7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station- Rani-ki-sarai, District Azamgarh.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that although the applicant is named in the first information report but his name finds place in the same on he basis of disclosure by co-accused Saharsh @ Goldi Rai and Dharmendra Kumar Rai @ Babloo Rai. It is argued that the same is not admissible in evidence. It is further argued that co-accused Mukesh Rai @ Rintu Rai, Sunil Kumar Yadav, Dhiraj Rai and Anant who are also named in the first information report on the basis of disclosure of their names by co-accused are said to have ran away as that of the applicant have been granted anticipatory bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 23.05.2022, 24.05.2022 and 17.06.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. Nos. 3226 of 2022, 2868 of 2022 and 4498 of 2022. It is argued while placing paragraph 28 of the affidavit that the applicant has no criminal history. It is further argued that the applicant is a farmer and is doing labour work for his livelihood. The applicant is neither the employee of the institution nor he is doing any work with regard to education.
Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is argued that the present matter relates to a high level conspiracy done for cheating in TET examination in which as many as 30 persons including the applicant are named in the first information report. It is argued that because of the said act of the accused persons, the entire examination was cancelled. It is argued that the same is an organized crime.
Looking to the facts of the case, the nature of offence and the fact that the crime is an organized crime, I find no good ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected .
Order Date :- 28.7.2022 AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)
Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR Date: 2022.07.29 17:18:16 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether good and sufficient cause exists for the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Whether the allegations of organized cheating conspiracy and organized crime nature preclude the grant of bail.
7 provisions across 3 enactments
Jagjeevan
State of U.P.
Another
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
