Dismissed

Yameen v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2023ABAIL/1807/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order rejects an anticipatory bail application filed by Yameen. The court found the case similar to co-accused applications previously rejected, noting the serious nature of the conspiracy charge and the accused's involvement as a beneficiary.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application was rejected in terms of earlier orders dated 14.02.2023 and 15.02.2023 regarding co-accused.

Yameen 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. - 1807 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Yameen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jagdish Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Jagdish Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, for the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short ‘CBI’) and perused the record.

¶6

By way of this application under Section 438 CrP.C., the accused-applicant seeks bail, apprehending his arrest pursuant to R.C. No.1202022A0008, under Sections 120-B IPC read with Sections 465, 467 and 471 IPC, Police Station CBI, ACB, Ghaziabad (Special Case No.5 of 2022 'CBI Vs. Abhaykant and others).

¶7

Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the CBI submits that Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CrPC Nos.1651 of 2023 and 1707 of 2023 filed by similarly situated co-accused, Abdul Qualam and Abid Hussain respectively have already been rejected vide orders dated 14.02.2023 and 15.2.2023. The order dated 14.2.2023 reads as under:-

¶8

"1. Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the accused-applicant and Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Deputy Solicitor General assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. and perused record.

¶9

2. The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in anticipation of his arrest in FIR-R.C. No. 1202022A0008, under Section 120B I.P.C. read with Sections 465, 467, 471 I.P.C., Police Station CBI, ACB, Ghaziabad in connection with Special Case No. 5 of 2022 (CBI Vs. Abhay Kant and Others).

¶10

3. The C.B.I. registered FIR-R.C. No. 1202022A0008 at Police Station CBI, ACB, Ghaziabad, on a written complaint of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range-I, Muzaffar Nagar alleging that Abhay Kant, the then Senior Tax Assistant (at present Office Superintendent) in connivance with and in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with his colleague, namely, Gopal Yadav, the then Senior Tax Assistant (now Office Superintendent, Saurabh Singh, the then Tax Assistant (now Senior Tax Assistant) and Rohit Kumar, the then Steno (now Inspector); using R.S. Token illegally accepted/sanctioned the tax refund on system and Rs.1,39,31,370 were transferred in the bank account of 11 private individuals. In the account of the present accused applicant, Rs.12,04,770/- was transferred.

¶11

4. The C.B.I. after investigating the offence has filed charge sheet for offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 465, 467 and 471 I.P.C. and thereafter the cognizance has been taken against the accused applicant and others by the learned trial court.

¶12

5. Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that the accused applicant has been made to pay the entire amount which was transferred in his bank account along with penalty of Rs.1,78,982. He, therefore, submits that when the charge sheet has been filed, no purpose would be served in keeping the accused applicant in custody. He submits that the accused applicant is ready to co-operate in the trial and undertakes not to influence any witnesses or tamper with evidence.

¶13

6. On the other hand, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Deputy Solicitor General assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I., has submitted that by depositing the amount, the offence does not get effaced. The Investigation has revealed that the accused applicant was fully involved in criminal conspiracy to cheat the Income Tax Department and he has been a beneficiary. He has no option but to deposit the amount as it was noticed that Rs.12,04,770/- was transferred in the bank account of the accused applicant. He therefore submits that this case does not fall within the parameters of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and thus the accused applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶14

7. The scope of Section 438 Cr.P.C. is limited and where the offence is clearly made out, which is serious in nature, the Court should not grant anticipatory bail.

¶15

8. In view thereof, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the accused applicant on anticipatory bail.

¶16

9. Anticipatory bail application is accordingly rejected.

¶17

10. However, it is provided that if the accused-applicant surrenders before the concerned trial court within ten days from today and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law keeping in mind the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed and the accused applicant has deposited the entire amount which was transferred to his bank account; along with penalty, coupled with the fact that he has no previous criminal history."

¶18

It is further submitted by Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate for the CBI that in the account of present accusedapplicant Rs.33,01,491/- was transferred.

¶19

Considering the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is also rejected in the same terms of the orders dated 14.02.2023 and 15.2.2023, rejecting the Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CrPC Nos.1651 of 2023 and 1707 of 2023 filed by co-accused, Abdul Qualam and Abid Hussain respectively.

¶20

Order Date :- 17.2.2023 Rao/-

¶21

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

Yameen v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yameen 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

Dr. Krishna Murari Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Radhe Shyam Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

State of U.P. Vs Fasahat Ali Khan Alias Shanu

Irfan Solanki Vs State of U.P.

State of U.P Vs Granth Singh Gahlaut

Naim Vs State of U.P.