Dismissed

Neeraj Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2023ABAIL/13313/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order dismissed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The High Court of Allahabad held that the substantial recovery of illicit liquor and fabricated materials at the applicant's licensed premises negated claims of false implication, making the applicant ineligible for anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected; benefit of anticipatory bail denied.

Neeraj Singh Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13313 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Neeraj Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amrendra Pratap Singh,Shiv Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh and Sri Shiv Raj Singh learned counsel for the applicant, Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State and perused the papers on record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no.0233 of 2022, under Sections 60(2) 72(C) of the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 & Sections 420, 467,468,471,472 and 473 and 34 I.P.C., P.S.Ghorawal, District Sonbhadra.

¶7

As per prosecution case, the applicant was found involved in a case of manufacture of spurious and adulterated liquor and passing them off to the customers affixing fake brand names. As per allegations in the F.I.R., on the basis of confidential information, a police team raided the house of present applicant Neeraj Singh and found that co accused persons were preparing spurious liquor and putting it in bottles with fake marks. It is alleged that a total of 1717 bottles of 200ml each, 7 plastic jerrycans, 2 plastic jars containing spurious liquor, 792 empty bottles, 1033 new lids/caps, 2680 old lids/caps, 1360 fake QR codes and a lot of other articles were seized on the spot i.e. from the licensed shop of present applicant.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that he was not arrested on the spot and whatever was happening was in his absence. It is also contended that he has been falsely implicated out of political rivalry. It is also contended that there has not been any independent witness. All the witnesses are interested as they are police personnel.

¶9

The anticipatory bail application is opposed by the learned A.G.A. pointing out that huge quantity of illicit liquor and plastic jerrycans, bottles etc. were recovered, old lids which were being replaced by new one with fake marks and fake QR code were recovered. It is stated that in the background of the kind of recovery made from the premise owned by the applicant, defence of false implication does not hold ground and in case of such nature the applicant is not entitled to be granted relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is not possible for police to plant such articles in the premises of the applicant.

¶10

Prima facie it does not appear that the F.I.R. has been lodged against him with the purpose of bringing disgrace or cause humiliation to him by having him arrested in a mala fide manner. It may also be kept in mind that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised in suitable cases only. The powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be utilized in a routine manner and definitely not as a substitute for regular bail. This discretionary power calls for existence of facts of the kind where the court

¶11

is satisfied that its interference is necessary to further the cause of justice and to prevent misuse of process of law.

¶12

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

¶13

Hence the anticipatory bail application is rejected .

¶14

09. It is made clear that observations made in rejecting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion at any stage of the case based on material before him.

¶15

Order Date :- 20.2.2023

¶16

Asha

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Neeraj Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Singh 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

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P. . and Another

Brijesh Pathak Vs State of U.P.

Gopal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Kumar Srivastava and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankush Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suman and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others