This court dismissed anticipatory bail application by Vijay Prakash in an embezzlement case under various IPC sections. The court found prima facie complicity and evidence of absconding sufficient to deny bail.
Anticipatory bail application dismissed; no protection granted against arrest.
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:66800
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1970 of 2024
Applicant :- Vijay Prakash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Ecy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for State as well as perused the record. The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to Case Crime No.52 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 409 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Gauriganj, District Amethi.
Allegation in the prosecution case is that applicant along with co-accused has embezzled a sum of Rs.24,11,499/- from the account of PCF Amethi and in order to conceal his offence, the charge of the records has not been handed over to Atul Tiwari, the present Accountant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Applicant has been terminated from the service. Applicant has returned the amount to the department.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the anticipatory bail of the applicant and submits that offence under Section 467 IPC is punishable with life, complicity of the applicant is evident from the fact that applicant has been terminated from the department relating to the said offence in a parallel departmental proceedings, there is no case of false implication.
He further submits that applicant is absconding and non-
bailable warrants have been issued. He also submits that applicant has embezzled amounts in more than one cooperative societies and custodial interrogation is required.
On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record prima facie complicity of the applicant is evident, it is not a case of false implication, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. The bail application is dismissed .
Order Date :- 25.9.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-
Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable in a case involving alleged embezzlement and charge sheet completion.
Whether the prima facie evidence of complicity and absconding negates the requirement for anticipatory bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vijay Prakash
State Of U.P.
Karunesh Singh Pawar
Saurabh Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
