Bank manager sought anticipatory bail in a financial fraud FIR under sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC. Court relied on P.Chidambram v Directorate of Enforcement that economic offences warrant sparing use of anticipatory bail, found no ground to intervene, and rejected the application.
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:85491
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1488 of 2024
Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Jha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharam Prakash,Sanjay Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kuldeep,Shikhar Deep Singh,Vipin Kumar
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shikhar Deep Singh, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 48 of 2022, under sections 420, 467, 468 of the IPC, Police Station-Utraula, District-Balrampur.
From perusal of the first information report as well as the record, it transpires that the applicant is the Manager of the Bank and he has committed cheat and fraud while fabricating the documents.
The instant matter pertains to the financial fraud and the financial frauds are the class apart.
This court is also aware of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.Chidambram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement , reported in (2019)9 Supreme Court Cases, 24 , wherein it has been held that case of economic offences are of different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society and therefore, the power under section 438 of the Cr.P.C., be exercised sparingly and in such matters, the bail applications must be granted in exceptional cases, after application of mind in relation to nature and gravity of accusation, possibility of applicant fleeing justice and other factors.
Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to satisfactorily substantiate that the applicant would not tamper the evidences and would not threaten the witnesses. Application of arrest has also been denied.
Thus, this court does not find any good ground to intervene in this matter. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant, Ajay Kumar Jha , is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 19.12.2024 AKS
Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant accused under sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC for financial fraud.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.Chidambram Vs. Directorate of EnforcementRelied on
(2019)9 Supreme Court Cases, 24
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Ajay Kumar Jha
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Another
Shree Prakash Singh
As recorded by the court registry
7 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
