Applicants sought anticipatory bail in a case alleging forged release and sale of a complainant's vehicle after a purchase cheque was dishonoured. Counsel admitted the applicants sold the vehicle; the court found complicity evident, no false implication, and rejected the anticipatory bail 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:66469
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2184 of 2024
Applicant :- Rahul Mishra And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Irfan Alam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
1. The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.287 of 2022 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 406, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Tulsipur, district Balrampur.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant who has filed supplementary affidavit which is taken on record, and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
3. It is alleged in the prosecution case that the applicant No.1 has purchased vehicle of the complainant for a sum of Rs.4,10,000/-. Only Rs.1,10,000/- in cash was given to the complainant, Rest Rs.3 lacs was given through cheque, however, the cheque was dishonoured in the year 2018. The vehicle remained in the name of the complainant. Thereafter, an accident took place with that vehicle. A case was registered. It is alleged that the accused persons, particularly applicant No.2 Deena Nath who is father of applicant No.1 by forging papers of the vehicle without information to the complainant got the vehicle released. After release of the vehicle, it has been sold to Jamirul Hassan.
4.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the incident is of 2018. Regarding dishonour of the cheque, neither any notice was served upon the applicants nor a case under section 138
N.I. Act was registered by the complainant. The complainant himself gave application for release of the vehicle.
However, on a query being made by the Court, learned counsel has admitted that due to need of fund, the applicants have sold the vehicle. Thus, it cannot be said that the applicants have been falsely implicated. Complicity of the applicant is evident in the prosecution case. It is not a case of false implication. No case for anticipatory bail is made out.
5.The application is rejected.
Order Date :- 25.9.2024 kkb/
Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail in a forgery and cheating case arising out of a vehicle purchase with a dishonoured cheque.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rahul Mishra
Deena Nath
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.
Karunesh Singh Pawar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
