The Allahabad High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application wherein the applicant alleged false implication. The court found no exceptional grounds to exercise discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. after perusing the charge-sheet and the judgment of P. Chidambaram.
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:30922
Court No. - 31
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1437 of 2022
Applicant :- Preeti Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Awaneesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1-The case is taken up through video conferencing from Allahabad.
2-Heard Mr. Awaneesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Ravish Chandra Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
3-This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant before this Court seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 0344 of 2022, U/s 311, 420, 406, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow.
4-Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for applicant is that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and the investigating ofÏcer, without conducting fair investigation, submitted charge-sheet no. A49 of 2022, dated 08.05.2022.
5-Per contra learned Additional Government Advocate for the state of U.P. opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant by contending that investigating ofÏcer, after due investigation, submitted charge sheet dated 08.05.2022 in this case on the basis of cogent material against the applicant, therefore as on date cognizable offence is made out against the applicant and it can not be presumed that she has been falsely implicated.
6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
upon perusal of material brought on record as well as complicity of accused-applicant and also judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement , AIR 2019 SC 4198, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the applicant.
7-Accordingly, the instant application for anticipatory bail is rejected .
Order Date :- 19.4.2024 saurabh
Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether exceptional grounds exist to grant anticipatory bail when a charge sheet is based on cogent material.
Whether the applicant was falsely implicated or had a role in the alleged offence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of EnforcementReferred¶12
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Preeti Pandey
State Of U.P.
Sanjay Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
