The Allahabad High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by Nempal in a cheating case. The court held that given the scale of embezzlement and necessity for custodial interrogation, the matter was not fit for bail despite the charge sheet having been filed.
Prayer for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. refused and application rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:170164
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9142 of 2023
Applicant :- Nempal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Kumar Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
public at large for providing loan facility has been assigned to the present applicant. It is further submitted that no wrongful gain has been received by the present applicant. It is further submitted that the incident is said to have taken place on 13.04.2022 whereas the applicant had resigned from the company on 08.04.2022 itself. It is also submitted that he has been cooperative with the I.O. of the case during the course of investigation and after filing of the charge sheet, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.
It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.
applicant appears to be necessary, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant. Prayer made in the application is refused.
Order Date :- 22.8.2023 Shivangi
Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail given the post-charge-sheet stage and the necessity of custodial interrogation.
Whether the applicant's role in the loan distribution scheme warrants refusal of bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and anotherReferred¶13
(2020) 5 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nempal
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
