Dismissed

Smt. Asha Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2023ABAIL/11226/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court rejected anticipatory bail application filed by accused-applicant in a corruption case involving food adulteration and embezzlement. Justice Singh found her lack of action suspicious and denied bail but allowed prompt consideration if she surrenders.

What did the court decide?

Accused-applicant directed to surrender before trial Court within seven days for consideration of regular bail.

Smt. Asha Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11226 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Asha Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nisha Singh Parihar,R. P. Singh Parihar

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri R.P. Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the accused-applicant, as well as learned Additional Government Advocate, representing respondent-State, and gone through the record.

¶7

The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in anticipation of her arrest in Case Crime No. 144 of 2022, under Sections 403, 406, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Sangramagarh, District Pratapgarh.

¶8

The present application has been filed after the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Ant-Corruption Act), Court No. 5, Gorakhpur has rejected the anticipatory bail application of the accused-applicant vide order dated 15th October, 2022 passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 5378 of 2022.

¶9

The allegation against the accused-applicant and other coaccused is that they had disposed of entire Pustahar given for providing nutrition food to the school going children in the market. The vehicle in which the food items were being taken for black marketing was seized.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant Sri R.P. Singh Parihar submits that the accused-applicant was not involved in any manner, it was Sushila Devi and her son, who were involved.

¶11

Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶12

Considering the fact that the accused-applicant was posted as Mukhya Sevika and when the food items were missing, she did not take any steps, at this stage, she appears to be involved in

¶13

commission of offence. In view thereof, I do not find any ground to enlarge the accused-applicant on anticipatory bail and, therefore, the present anticipatory bail application is rejected .

¶14

However, it is provided that if the accused-applicant appears and surrenders before the trial Court and prays for regular bail within seven days from today, the bail application may be considered expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶15

[Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.]

¶16

Order Date :- 23.1.2023 Shafique

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SAFIKUR RAHAMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Asha Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Asha Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Central Bureau of Investigation (Cbi) New Delhi Vs Vipin Sahni and Another

Sahabzada Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Rai Vs State of U.P. and Anothers

Satya Deo Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Nath Ram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Syed Ghulam Syedain Rizvi Vs State of U.P. and Another