Dismissed

Constable Sumit Gurjar @ Sumit Chaudhary v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2023ABAIL/13260/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order rejects two anticipatory bail applications filed by police constables accused of demanding and accepting bribes and threatening the complainant to implicate him in a false case. The court held the alleged conduct did not meet Section 438 Cr.P.C. parameters.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail in Crime No.553 of 2022 rejected; both applications dismissed.

Constable Sumit Gurjar @ Sumit Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13260 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Constable Sumit Gurjar @ Sumit Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhitab Kumar Tiwari

¶4

connected with

¶5

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13311 of 2022

¶6

Applicant :- Amit Kumar Jawala (Sub-Inspector) @ Amit Kuamr Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhitab Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicants and Sri J.P.S. Chauhan, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶9

The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. have been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.553 of 2022, under Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Lisari Gate, District Meerut.

¶10

It is said that the accused-applicants, who were posted as SubInspector and Constable had been demanding bribe from the complainant and were threatening the complainant to implicate him in a false case if he would not pay them Rs.1,00,000/-. On 9.9.2022 at around 9 PM, the accused-applicants threatened the complainant and because of the threat given by the accusedapplicants, the complainant gave Rs.1,00,000/- to them. This incident could be seen in the CCTV footage of the area.

¶11

Sri J.P.S. Chauhan, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has submitted that on examination of CCTV

¶12

footage of the date, time and place, it was found that the accusedapplicants were taking the bribe from the complainant.

¶13

Looking at the conduct of the accused-applicants of demanding and accepting the bribe amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant and the threats given by them that if he would not pay them the bribe demanded, he might be implicated in a false case, this Court does not deem it appropriate to enlarge the accusedapplicants on anticipatory bail as the offence allegedly committed by the accused-applicants does not fall within the parameters of Section 438 Cr.P.C..

¶14

Both the anticipatory bail applications are accordingly rejected.

¶15

Order Date :- 7.2.2023 Rao/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Constable Sumit Gurjar @ Sumit Chaudhary v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Constable Sumit Gurjar @ Sumit Chaudhary v. State of U.P.

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

Vipin Kumar Vs C.B.I

Babu Singh Kushwaha @ Ram Charan Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Singh @ Dablu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Laxman Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Uma Shankar Singh and 10 Others Vs State of U.P.

Ajeet Kumar Vs Central Bureau of Investigation