An application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court, as the court found no apprehension of arrest given the nature of offenses and completeness of investigation, referring to recent Supreme Court precedent for future bail proceedings.
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. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12738 of 2022
Applicant :- Jivika Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Hasham,Syed Faiz Hasnain,Syed Riyaz Askari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is allegation of taking money from the informant for providing plot with co-accused who is real brother of the applicant. Further submitted that this applicant is lady and after conclusion of investigation charge sheet has been submitted by the police. The amount of Rs. 2,16,000/- were returned to the informant through UPI ID and PayTM. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is under apprehension of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the trial.
On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail and urged that in this case money was taken by this applicant with other co-accused persons for providing plot to the informant. Rs. 3,25,000/- were also received by this applicant during the aforesaid transaction, as per allegation in the F.I.R. regarding which a receipt was given on stamp paper and no any plot was given to the informant. Further urged that after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC. Offences are punishable with sentence less than seven years. Therefore, she is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that after investigation charge sheet has been submitted and all the offences are punishable with imprisonment below seven years, therefore, there is no apprehension of arrest by the police. Hence, no good ground is made out for anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application of applicant Jivika involved in Case Crime No. 70 of 2021, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad is hereby rejected .
However, it is directed that in case, the applicant appears and moves bail application before the court concerned, it will be heard and decided expeditiously as far as possible in the light of case decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another LL 2021 SC 550.
Order Date :- 10.1.2023 A. Singh
Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail application must be allowed given the allegations of false implication and the chargeability to sections punishable with sentences under seven years.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherReferred¶9
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another LL 2021 SC 550
Jivika
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
