Deepak Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court rejected an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in an FIR registering offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 66-D of the IT Act. The court found that funds were recovered from the applicant's account, establishing prima facie evidence against him, and thus declined to grant relief.
What the court decided
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:175311
Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8045 of 2024
Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh Bais Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
- Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.
- Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
- The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 01 of 2023, under Section 420 IPC and Section 66-D of I.T. Act, Police Station- Cyber Crime Saharanpur, District- Saharanpur, during the pendency of trial.
- Allegation in the first information report is that by fraudulent transactions Rs.5,88,514.74/- has been withdrawn from the account of the informant.
- Counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Applicant is not named in the first information report. Applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Deepak Kumar Yadav
- respondent
State of U.P.
Coram
Deepak Verma
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · September
- Registered
- Case no.
- ABAIL/8045/2024
All orders in this case
3 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court