Dismissed

Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2023ABAIL/9088/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an anticipatory bail application under S. 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant faced charges under IPC 420 and forgery sections for allegedly defrauding an informant with a false Army job offer and returning only a bad cheque. The bench found the FIR un-mala-fide. Anticipatory bail was denied as no good cause was established.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9088 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Shantam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhay Pratap Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vijay Shantam, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Perused the papers on record.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application has been moved in Case Crime No.107 of 2020, under sections- 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Bhojpur, District- Ghaziabad.

¶8

An F.I.R., naming the applicant, was lodged by the informant- Sunil Kumar with the allegations that informant's uncle Pramod arranged a meeting with present applicant and his associate Sanjay Kumar Singh, who assured the informant that he shall get employed in Army if he facilitates payment of about Rs.3,53,000/-. Allured into their offer, the informant and his father handed over Rs.50,000/- in cash and Rs.3,00,000/-. The informant received a joining letter from them and was asked to go to Pune for the purpose of training. However, when the victim reached Pune, he found that the joining letter was forged and fabricated. He demanded his money back but was given a cheque, which could not be encashed.

¶9

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that for an incident, which allegedly occurred in 2017, the F.I.R. has been lodged on 13.03.2020, i.e., after a gap of about more than three years. It is contended that the F.I.R. has been lodged just to bring pressure on the accused side to extract money from him and that initiation of criminal proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

¶10

The submission of the applicant was opposed by the counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State on the premise that this case is not a simple transaction of money on the pretext of securing an employment, but has gone beyond it as a forged joining letter was given to the victim and that the conspiracy came into open only when the victim reached the

¶11

office to join as an Army Personnel. Thereafter, to make the matter worse, the money obtained fraudulently from the victim was not returned. It is also submitted on behalf of the State that during investigation the applicant has not been co-operating and that non-bailable warrant was issued against him and in case he is granted protection under the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., he may further misuse his liberty and that the smooth conduct of investigation/trial may get obstructed.

¶12

I went through all the papers on record and considered the rival submissions. Prima-facie, it does not appear that in this case the F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant in a mala fide manner to bring disgrace to him and to belittle his name in the society. In this case, allegedly a forged joining letter was issued, a fact adds another dimension to this case. In my view, no good ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶13

The application for anticipatory bail is accordingly dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 2.1.2023 Saif

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

X (Juvenile) Vs State of U.P. and Another

X Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dileep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prathveeraj and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohit Kumar Goyal Vs State of U.P.

Rinku and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another