Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 17281 of 2021 Applicant :- Babboo Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Sisodia,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0621 of 2021, under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that previously by police officer, S.I. Nisha Devi F.I.R. No. 0075 of 2020, under Sections 332, 353, 504, 506 I.P.C. at P.S. Pakbada, District Moradabad was registered against him and he was warned of dare consequences by the police. As a result of this warning, the present F.I.R. dated 07.08.2021 was got registered by the police through Rewa Devi as F.I.R. No. 621 of 2021, under Section 392 I.P.C at P.S. Majhola, District Moradabad. Later on, the earrings snatched from the first informant are said to have recovered from the applicant. The first information report is not named. The applicant is having no other criminal history. The applicant has been falsely implicated by the police in retaliation of the previous F.I.R. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that he is having a jewellery shop and police had taken the earnings from his shop and has falsely implicated in the said recovery. The applicant is having apprehension of being arrested, so the prayer of anticipatory bail is made.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and submitted that in the CCTV camera the photo of the three unknown persons were seen. The accused persons were recognized by the complainant and on the basis of the same. The present accused was arrested and from his possession the snatched one earning is said to have been recovered, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is opposed.
From the perusal of both the first information reports, it is clear that there is gap of about one year and five months. On the basis of the same, it cannot be said that present F.I.R. has been registered by the police through a private lady in retaliation of the previous first information report. The police stations of both the first information reports are different. The complainant of both the first information reports are also different. One earning of the informant is said to have recovered from the applicant. The applicant is having a jewellery shop but no proof regarding the same has been filed on record.
After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and after perusing the averments made in the present anticipatory bail application as well as rejection order, this Court is of the opinion, that learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any good ground for grant of bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the applicant is, hereby, rejected.
Order Date :- 21.12.2021 Radhika