Dismissed

Chaman Lal Diwakar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 May 2023ABAIL/3704/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Alblind Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The judge held that the applicant has no reason to believe he will be arrested, citing Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and the Supreme Court's directives in Arnesh Kumar, noting the absence of a charge-sheet.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail refused; application disposed of.

Chaman Lal Diwakar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:122130

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3704 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Chaman Lal Diwakar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gopal Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶7

Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Chaman Lal Diwakar in Case Crime No. 0176 of 2020, under Sections 406, 420 I.P.C., Police Station - Cant, District - Varanasi.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further argued that investigation is going-on and till date no charge-sheet has been submitted. Applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest any time. The investigation of the case is going on.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and submitted that accused applicant has criminal history of 8 cases as per instructions obtained by him in this matter. It is very strange that no specific instructions have been obtained by learned State counsel in the light of the order passed on 08.05.2023 so far the criminal history of the accused applicant is concerned. It is submitted in para 13 of the affidavit annexed with the anticipatory bail application that the criminal history has been explained.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully. The attention of the court is drawn towards the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.1151 of 2023 vide order dated 09.02.2023 wherein it

¶11

has been mentioned that the accused applicant is named in only one F.I.R. but however different Investigating Officer, investigating different F.I.R. in relation to functioning of the same company, F.I.R. has been lodged against the present accused applicant in view of keeping the fact that the offence alleged against the applicant is punishable with the imprisonment for a maximum period of seven years and investigation of the case is going on. Accused applicant is already protected from arrest by virtue of provision under Section 41-A Cr.P.C.

¶12

In this matter, as is evident from the record, offences levelled against the applicant are of Sections 406, 420 IPC, which are punishable with the imprisonment upto seven years. Specific provisions under Section 41-A CrPC have been provided giving protection to the accused person from arrest for the offences punishable upto seven years' imprisonment and in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has also emphasized upon the power of police to arrest without warrant and it has been clarified that a balance between individual liberty and societal order should be made while exercising power of arrest. It has also been directed that where the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years, whether with or without fine, the police officer shall not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate shall not authorize detention casually and mechanically. Even in Section 438 CrPC it has been promulgated that accused must have reason to believe that he may be arrested in cognizable offence by the police to get protection of anticipatory bail.

¶13

In the light of aforesaid provisions, the applicant has no reason to believe that he may be arrested. Hence, having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no indulgence is warranted in the matter. Prayer made in the application is refused.

¶14

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶15

Order Date :- 30.5.2023 Shivangi

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chaman Lal Diwakar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaman Lal Diwakar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Mamta Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hazik @ Hazik Siddiqui Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kanhaiya Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramesh Chand Vs State of U.P.

Sartaj Vs State of U.P. and Another