Dismissed

Satya Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2024/248/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court stated it was not inclined to entertain the application based on the submissions and material on record, noting the allegations of false implication.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed.

Satya Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:32766

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 248 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Satya Prakash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lalji Prasad Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The instant application has been preferred by the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.698 of 2023, under Sections 420, 352, 506, 504 IPC, relating to police station Kotwali City, District Sitapur.

¶9

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the applicant has not committed any fraudulent exercise.

¶10

It is further stated that the averments made in the FIR are purely self serving and the applicant does not have any criminal history except for two cases wherein the applicant has yet not summoned as mentioned in the supplementary affidavit.

¶11

Learned AGA has opposed application for grant of anticipatory bail and it has specifically been urged that the applicant had sold the said property to the complainant, thereafter, the said property was again resold to another party and this fact can be verified from sale deed which has been executed by the applicant himself.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record and averments made in the FIR, this Court is not inclined to entertain the aforesaid bail application.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to grant the benefit of the anticipatory bail. Consequently, the present

¶14

anticipatory bail application is dismissed. However, it shall be open for the applicant to seek regular bail and in case such an application is moved, the same shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned in light of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC Online SC 825.

¶15

Order Date :- 26.4.2024

¶16

Harshita

¶17

Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Satya Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Sarfaraj Ahamad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Dheeraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Ram Bahadur @ Nanhey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Lucknow Thru Its Manager vs Shanti Devi and Ors.

Ravindra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Satya Prakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another