Dismissed

Vikas Yadav v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2024ABAIL/104/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. rejected where the applicant concealed that he had earlier sought Section 482 relief directing surrender for regular bail and that process under Sections 82-83 Cr.P.C. had issued against him; court held such application non-maintainable per Supreme Court precedent and imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- recoverable as arrears of land revenue if unpaid within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

None; application rejected with cost of Rs. 10,000/- payable within 30 days or recoverable as arrears of land revenue.

Vikas Yadav vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:7416

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 104 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vikas Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar,Rajeev Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Shri Rohit Kumar Tripathi, Advocate has filed his 'vakalatnama' on behalf of the complainant/informant, the same is taken on record.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including up-to-date case diary.

¶8

Heard Shri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Rohit Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The instant application has been moved by the applicant- Vikas Yadav, in Case Crime No. 49 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending arrest in the abovementioned case.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution and the only allegations which has been levelled against him are to the tune that Rs. 3,20,000/- has been credited in his bank account by co-accused Arjun Yadav. However, thereafter the said amount i.e. Rs. 3,20,000/- was returned by him in the bank account of Arjun Yadav as the same was wrongly remitted in his bank account.

¶11

It is also submitted that applicant is ready to co-operate in the trial, as he has cooperated in the investigation and there is no apprehension that after being released on anticipatory bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. as well as Shri Rohit Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/informant vehemently submits that the instant application has been moved by concealing material facts as firstly the process of 82-83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant on 20.12.2023 and this fact has been concealed by the applicant and secondly the applicant had earlier approached this Court by filing an Application U/s 482 No. 8613 of 2022 and vide order dated 24.11.2022 the same was disposed of with the direction to the applicant to appear/surrender before the court below within 30 days from the date of order with a consequential direction to the trial court to dispose of the prayer of bail in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors . reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017, In Re: To issue certain Guidelines Regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others , MANU/SC/0292/2021 and in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773. However, the applicant in stead of complying the said order not only moved an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the trial court but has approached this Court by filing an anticipatory bail application without mentioning that he had earlier approached this Court by filing the above application under section 482 Cr.P.C. and was directed to appear/surrender before the trial court for the purpose of procuring regular bail.

¶13

Perusal of the record in the background of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties would fortify the submissions made by learned A.G.A. as well as Shri Rohit Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/informant. An order of this Court dated 24.11.2022 passed in Application U/s 482 No. 8613 of 2022 has been placed for perusal and a copy of the process issued by the trial court under Section 82-83 Cr.P.C. dated 20.12.2023 has also been placed on record. These documents have been taken on record.

¶14

Perusal of the application and the affidavit enclosed therewith would reveal that the applicant has not mentioned this fact that he had earlier approached this Court by filing an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. Thus, an attempt has been made to pollute the stream of justice by concealing material facts and any such activity wherein an attempt has been made to procure a favourable order either by placing wrong facts (intentionally) or concealing material facts, which are in the knowledge of the applicant is required to be dealt with iron hands.

¶15

Having regard to all the facts and circumstances discussed herein-before, I do not find any good ground on the basis of which the facility of anticipatory bail may be granted to the applicant.

¶16

In result, the anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant- Vikas Yadav is, hereby, rejected with the cost of Rs. 10,000/-, moreso when the same is not maintainable on account of issuance of process of 82-83 Cr.P.C. against him in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar and Ors'; MANU/SC/0951/2021 and 'Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)'; MANU/SC/0701/2012:(2012) 8 SCC 730.

¶17

If the aforesaid cost of Rs.10,000/- is not paid within 30 days from today, the same shall be recovered as an arrears of land revenue by the collector Gonda and on recovery would be deposited in the mediation center of this Bench.

¶18

Order Date :- 25.1.2024 Praveen

¶19

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

Vikas Yadav v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Yadav v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. 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

Kavita Chaudharya Alias Kavita Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and Another

Rajnath Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt. Mithlesh Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ayush Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Govt. Lucknow

Jang Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sanjay Bajpai Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.