Dismissed

Gopal Das Maurya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2024ABAIL/5140/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench disposed of an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The High Court refusal of bail finding justification based on serious allegations of embezzlement and prima facie case existence noting a co-ordinate court granted bail to a main accused.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail refused; applicant directed to surrender; regular bail application to be heard expeditiously below.

Gopal Das Maurya vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:134506

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5140 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Gopal Das Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Ojha,Ratnakar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.437 of 2018, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police StationRobertsganj, District- Sonbhadra during pendency of the investigation.

¶8

Initially an FIR was lodged on 09.08.2018 by the informant against the applicant and other co-accused persons alleging therein that applicant wooed the informant to invest money in company, namely, Idol India Corporation Limited and its other sister concerns and they have taken Rs.47,77,342/- from their customers, and thereafter, owner of the company closed the company after taking huge amount from the customers, thereafter, the matter was investigated and charge sheet was filed on 29.06.2019 and the Magistrate concerned taken cognizance on 02.08.2019 and against the said order, the applicant moved anticipatory bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra and the same was rejected by the court below vide its order dated 09.05.2023, copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No.9 to the affidavit, hence the present anticipatory bail application.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case, the applicant is not the Director of Idol India Group of Companies or in any of its sister concerns, he is only commission agent and investor. He submitted that the applicant himself is the victim; the main accused Bappaditya Majumdar has been granted regular bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 8.04.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7975 of 2021. The applicant has criminal history of two cases, which has been explained in paragraph 25 of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the

¶10

applicant further submitted that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant and has submitted that the the applicant is named in the FIR including other co-accused persons. He submitted that the matter relates to the embezzlement of huge amount more than Rs.47,77,342/- and as per statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., prima facie case is made out against the applicant, therefore, keeping view the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶12

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant.

¶13

After having very carefully examined, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material brought on record, there is no justification for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is hereby refused .

¶14

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that a direction may be issued to the court below to decide the bail application of the applicant in accordance with law. However, it is directed that the applicant shall surrenders before the concerned court below, and in case, a regular bail application is filed, the same be heard and decided, expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶15

With the above observations and directions, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 22.8.2024/A.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- AFAQ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gopal Das Maurya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Das Maurya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Virendra @ Shaktiman vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj @ Pramendra vs State of U.P. and Another

Sangam Yadav vs State of Up

Badre Alam vs State of Up and Another

Siyadulari vs State of Up and Another

X Minor vs State of U.P.