Dismissed

Chandrakesh Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2023ABAIL/11942/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Allahabad dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by three accused persons charged with tampering with seized rice bags under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and various IPC sections. The court held it was not a fit case for anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was rejected.

Chandrakesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11942 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Chandrakesh Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Manoj Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the papers on record.

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicantsChandrakesh Kumar, Krishnanand Verma @ Deva Jagdishan and Ramji Verma seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.315 of 2022, under sections- 409, 424, 454, 489, 201, 120B I.P.C. Police Station- Gadwar, District- Ballia.

¶7

As per prosecution case, a Case Crime No.138 of 2022, under sections- 3/7 Essential Commodities Act was registered against the first applicant- Chandrakesh Kumar, the rice miller; on the instructions to physically inspect the rice mill, a joint team consisting of Tehsildar Sadar, CO City of District- Ballia and District Supply Officer inspected the place and found that 311 rice bags, which were seized and given in custody of one Sunil Kumar, were manipulated by breaking open a window of the godown; the 311 sacks containing seized grains were replaced with sacks containing straw. After inquiry, it was found that the grains were replaced by the first applicant with the help of the rest of the two applicants; thus, F.I.R. under sections- 409, 424, 454, 489, 201, 120B I.P.C. has been registered against them and is being investigated upon.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicants that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case as they are the rice mill owners; it is further contended that four F.I.R.s with regard to same matter based on same cause of action have been registered against applicant no.1 in a mala fide manner; a Civil Suit No.156 of 2021 has been filed by the applicants against the Recovery Certificate issued against them; annoyed by the civil litigation filed against the concerned authorities, this F.I.R. has been lodged.

¶9

Opposing this anticipatory bail application following facts, circumstances and arguments have been placed before me by the opposite side:-

¶10

(i) The F.I.R. in this case has been lodged in connection with grains seized under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act and was kept in a godown belonging to an independent person. In connection with the seized grains, the godown was visited, then it came to light that the seized grains has been replaced by some spurious things.

¶11

(ii) The F.I.R. is based after conduct of sufficient inquiry; the applicants are named; during the investigation, sufficient evidence has been collected.

¶12

(iii) It is also said that the matter is under investigation and the applicants are yet to appear before the Investigating Officer.

¶13

(iv) A thorough and effective investigation is required which is not possible unless the applicants fully co-operate and that anticipatory bail at this stage shall surely hamper a proper, ful-fledged and effective investigation.

¶14

While deciding the anticipatory bail, it may be kept in mind that this is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised in suitable cases only. The powers of anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be utilized in a routine manner and definitely not as a substitute for regular bail.

¶15

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it fit case to grant benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶16

Hence the anticipatory bail application is rejected .

¶17

However, any of the observations made herein shall not be taken as a comment on merits of the case and the court below shall be at liberty to form its own opinion at any stage of the case.

¶18

Order Date :- 19.1.2023 Saif

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandrakesh Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakesh Kumar and 2 Others 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

Ehasan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhay Singh Vs State of U.P.

Krishn Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Goldi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munni Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sant Kumar Vs State of U.P.