In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding alleged embezzlement, the court refused bail citing the applicant's status as a proclaimed offender. It granted liberty to apply for regular bail within two weeks.
Application dismissed; liberty to apply for bail within two weeks granted.
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. - 2024:AHC-LKO:44756
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1340 of 2024 Applicant :- Gufran Ahmad Opposite Party :- Stateof U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in F.I.R. No. 147/2013, under Section 409/420 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Maharajganj Tarain, District Balrampur with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
Notices to respondent no. 2 are dispensed with in view of the proposed order.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a dismissed bank officer. He has been falsely implicated. It is also submitted that the investigation is going on and the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation.
Learned AGA, on the other hand, has submitted that the applicant was declared as a proclaimed offender which suggests that he would not have cooperated in the investigation.
Perused the record.
Prima facie from perusal of the FIR, it is evident that the applicant who was a cashier in the bank is alleged to have committed embezzlement; FIR has been lodged by the bank; it is evident that the FIR has not been lodged with a view to
humiliate the applicant, coupled with the fact that already proclamation was issued against the applicant.
On due consideration to the argument advanced as well as considering the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of "Lavesh vs State (Nct Of Delhi), 2012 (8) SCC 730," I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed .
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays that he may be granted liberty to file a bail application which may be directed to be decided in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in "Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, Special Leave to Appeal (Cri)No.5191 of 2021 "
In view of the above, it is provided that, in case, the applicant appears before the trial court within two weeks from today and apply for bail, the same shall be decided expeditiously, in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil's case (supra).
Order Date :- 2.7.2024 R.C.
Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant, who is a dismissed bank officer alleged to have committed embezzlement and is a proclaimed offender, shall be granted anticipatory bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lavesh vs State (Nct Of Delhi)Referred¶13
Lavesh vs State (Nct Of Delhi), 2012 (8) SCC 730 · Who else cites this
Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of InvestigationReferred¶15
Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, Special Leave to Appeal (Cri)No.5191 of 2021
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gufran Ahmad
State of U.P
Karunesh Singh Pawar
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
