Dismissed

Brindalal Gautam v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2023ABAIL/882/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Application No. 882 of 2023, the Allahabad High Court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail. The applicant faced charges of submitting forged certificates to become a Primary School Teacher. The High Court held it was not a fit case for the remedy.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected with a direction that the rejection would not prevent the trial court from forming an independent opinion.

Brindalal Gautam Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 882 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Brindalal Gautam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Dubey,Manoj Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Duby and Sri Manoj Kumar Maurya, learned counsels for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the papers on record.

¶6

The present application has been moved on behalf of the applicant-Brindalal Gautam seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 481 of 2022 (Brindalal Vs. State of U.P.), under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Deoria.

¶7

As per prosecution case, an enquiry was conducted by S.T.F., Lucknow with regard to certificates on the basis of which certain teachers obtained post of Primary School Teachers. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the enquiry was conducted with regard to this candidate also and it was found that the applicant submitted forged mark-sheet/ certificates and obtained employment as a Primary School Teacher. He was given three notices to appear and present his side. In the departmental enquiry, he was found guilty and was terminated.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that he is innocent and his papers were not fabricated; he was not given proper opportunity to present his side before the disciplinary authorities. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused persons namely Shiv Kumar Misra, Ramsamujh, Anurag Kumar Mishra and Vasundhara Yadav have been granted anticipatory bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 10.10.2022, 12.10.2022, 13.10.2022 & 19.10.2022 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 9672 of 2022, 9606 of 2022, 9388 of 2022 & 8217 of 2022, respectively. Therefore the applicant too deserves the protection under section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶9

The anticipatory bail application is opposed by the learned A.G.A. Following facts and arguments have been placed before me:-

¶10

(i) In this case the F.I.R. has been lodged after a detailed and proper enquiry by the department concerned.

¶11

(ii) Sufficient evidence was collected before filing of F.I.R. as to production of forged mark-sheet/certificates by the applicant while obtaining job as Primary School Teacher.

¶12

(iii) During investigation it has been found that the Roll Number shown in the certificates produced by the applicant, in fact belonged to one Harender Pratap Srivastava.

¶13

It is next argued that the applicant has failed to show that he has been implicated in this case for some ulterior motive or just to humiliate him by filing a false case. As far as grant of anticipatory bail to other co-accused persons is concerned it is contended that parity is only one of the factors at the most having a persuasive value and is not a binding precedent.

¶14

I considered all the submissions, facts, circumstances and material placed before me, It may be kept in mind that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised in suitable cases only. The power 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 is satisfied that its interference is necessary to further the cause of justice and to prevent misuse of process of law.

¶15

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

¶16

Hence the anticipatory bail application is rejected .

¶17

It is made clear that observations made herein 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.

¶18

Order Date :- 13.2.2023 Vibha Singh

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VIBHA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Brindalal Gautam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brindalal Gautam 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

Mohammad Ovaish Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Saeed Vs State of U.P.

Anees Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra and Another Vs State of U.P.

Asif Malik and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ganga Prasad Vs State of U.P.