The Court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding a cheating and criminal conspiracy charge related to the alleged misappropriation of plastic polymer and subsequent burning of the truck.
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. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9843 of 2022
Applicant :- Gopal Krishna Tiwari @ Ashutosh Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kedar Nath Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for State.
The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to Case Crime No. 586 of 2021, under sections 120B, 420, 435, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Kasaya, district Kushinagar.
As per prosecution story, the driver of the truck of the applicant had taken about 1200 bags of plastic polymer weighing 30 metric tonnes amounting to Rs. 25,62,172.70/- from BPCL Lapetkata for delivery at Kanpur. The said truck started from Dibrugarh on 28.8.2020 and when it did not reach the destined place, an inquiry was made by the first informant to it and an FIR was lodged at P.S. Lapetkata, District Dibrugarh, Assam, alleging that the applicant, who happens to be the owner of the said truck, in connivance with proprietor, Chandrasekhar Yadav and driver Rajesh Yadav had deliberately usurped the said amount by selling the said plastic polymer.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Learned counsel has stated that applicant is a bonafide person and he has nothing to do with the said offence. Being the owner of the said truck, the applicant has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant had himself as a bonafide person, lodged the information of the burning of the said truck within the jurisdiction of P.S. Kasia, district Kushinagar (Uttar Pradesh) on 24.9.2020 at about 16.26 hours. Learned counsel has stated that the said information being provided by the applicant at the police station, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has next stated that the FIR was lodged at P.S. Dibrugarh on 21.9.2020, but the same has been transferred to P.S. Kasia, District Kushinagar, owing to the
jurisdiction on 21.8.2021 at 12.44 hours. Learned counsel has next stated that applicant has no criminal antecedents and he has himself incurred the loss as his truck has been burnt in the said incident. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the charge sheet has been filed after thorough investigation and the said entry in GD is at a belated stage, as it has been lodged about seven days after the said incident. There is no explanation of the said delay in informing the police about the said incident. There is nothing on record to suggest that any insurance claim has been made by the applicant or not. Learned A.G.A. has next stated that the present arguments pertain to regular bail application and cannot be agitated under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I do not find it a fit case for the interim protection or anticipatory bail. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant pertains to regular bail. The application is found devoid of merits.
In view of the above, present anticipatory bail application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.10.2022 Shalini
Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.11.01 17:48:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to interim protection or anticipatory bail given the delay in informing the police about the incident.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gopal Krishna Tiwari @ Ashutosh Tiwari
State Of U.P
Krishan Pahal
Shalini Jaiswal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
