Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8642 of 2021 Applicant :- Bhupesh Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandan Sharma,Ashok Kumar Tiwari,Bipin Bihari,Vinod Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This is application for anticipatory bail given by the applicants, namely, Bhupesh Kumar and Dhatri Charan Upadhyay in Case Crime/F.I.R. No.0034 of 2021, under Sections 406, 409, 467 IPC, P.S. Haldi, District Ballia.
The F.I.R. has been lodged on 14.03.2021 specifically naming both the applicants and the allegation is that in the inquiry applicants have been found to be guilty of misappropriation of government money, committing lapse in discharge of their official duty and preparing forged document to misappropriate the government money.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that there is no detail of the charges against the applicants nor the inquiry report has been made part of the F.I.R. Further submission is that in the same matter one Savita Devi has been granted anticipatory bail. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the allegation made in the F.I.R. is confused and it is not clear that what kind of offence accused persons have been found to have committed, therefore a prima facie case for anticipatory bail is made out.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail application and has submitted that on the direction of the District Magistrate the F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of an inquiry against the applicants in which they have found to have committed alleged offence. Further submission is that in such kind of case where the allegation of misappropriation of public money and preparing a forged document in order to withdraw the government fund has been made, anticipatory bail should not be granted.
Considering the submission of both the sides, apparently it appears to be a serious matter where the allegation is that the government fund has been misappropriated by the applicants and in inquiry they have been found to be guilty and on the direction of the District Magistrate, F.I.R. has been lodged. Moreover, the applicants have a forum of regular bail where they can file application for regular bail before the competent court. It is pertinent to mention that anticipatory bail is not a substitute of regular bail and applicants claiming anticipatory bail are expected to show extra ordinary circumstances and threat of arrest. F.I.R. has been lodged in March, 2021 and on record there is nothing to show that any effort has been made for the arrest of the applicants. As such, I do not find any ground for allowing the anticipatory bail application.
The anticipatory bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 28.7.2021 Tamang