Chandrasen Vishwakarma vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36099

Court No. - 70

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2008 of 2025

Applicant :- Chandrasen Vishwakarma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar,Sharda Vishwakarma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.543 of 2024, under Sections 420, 406, 504 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station Naini, District Prayagraj.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant challenged the FIR by filing Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No.17110 of 2024 (Chandra Sen Singh @ Chandra Sen Vishwakarma) and the Division Bench of this Court has passed the following orders on 23.09.2024:-

¶9

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State.

¶10

2. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First Information Report dated 30.08.2024, giving rise to Case Crime No.0543 of 2024, under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station - Naini, District Prayagraj, but at the time when the matter is taken up learned counsel for the petitioners confines his relief to grant of protection under section 35 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶11

3. We have perused the the First Information Report, which prima facie discloses commissioning of cognizable offence and, therefore, the prayer made to quash F.I.R. otherwise cannot be entertained in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315.

¶12

4. We are of the view that no interference is warranted.

¶13

5. However, considering the fact that all offences, mentioned in the present case, are punishable with a term up to 7 years, therefore, authorities are directed to ensure the procedure of arrest as per the guidelines of Supreme Court enshrined in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 as well as the directions issued in judgment and order dated 28.01.2021 of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.17732 of 2020.

¶14

6. The writ petition, accordingly, is disposed of."

¶15

Since the Division Bench of this Court had directed the authorities to ensure the procedure of arrest as per the guidelines of Supreme Court enshrined in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014)8 SCC 273 but the Investigating Officer by telephonic call unnecessarily summoned the applicant and threat to implicate the applicant on another case. Learned AGA further submitted that the Division Bench of this Court had passed orders in pursuance of guidelines of Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra). Till today no charge-sheet has been submitted. Submission of the applicant is false and not supported by any evidence. Applicant would have to appear before the Investigating Officer if he summoned for the purposes of investigation.

¶16

The relief as sought by the applicant through this application is refused.

¶17

Considered the argument of both the parties. The instant anticipatory bail application is disposed of with the direction that the Investigating Officer in pursuance of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, shall record statement after giving notice under section 41A Cr.P.C. & 35 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and shall proceed with the case in accordance with law.

¶18

Order Date :- 12.3.2025 SKD

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandrasen Vishwakarma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrasen Vishwakarma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raja Miya vs State of U.P.

Lal Mohammad vs State of U.P.

Rajnath Yadav vs State of U.P.

Shatrughan Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sameer Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another

Aslam and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another