Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Gaurav Saxena vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|05 September, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19723 of 2017 Applicant :- Gaurav Saxena Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Singh Rathore Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
1- Heard J.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2- This is the second bail application moved by the applicant in Case Crime No. 0153 of 2016, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., Police Station C.B. Ganj, District Bareilly. The first bail application was rejected by Hon'ble Pratyush Kumar, J. vide order dated 1.5.2017 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.26353 of 2016 for want of prosecution.
3- From perusal of the order dated 1.5.2017 it transpires that learned counsel for the complainant was present at the time of hearing.
4- According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against three accused persons, namely Gaurav Saxena, Nikhil Saxena and Chauhan alleging that the present applicant was working in Heritage Honda M.S.G.R. Auto Mobile Rampur Road Bareilly and he submitted Rs.8,30,884/- demand draft to the complainant that was finally found forged.
5- Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he has been falsely implicated and he was only the employee of the said agency; he has no criminal history; after investigation charge- sheet has been submitted against this appellant only. Trial is going on. Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
6- Learned A.G.A. submitted that post demand draft was transmitted by the present applicant to the complainant. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded; hence the trial is at the stage of conclusion.
7- This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. No interference is called for. The second bail application is liable to be rejected.
8- The second bail application moved by the applicant is rejected.
9- However, the trial court is directed to decide the case of the applicant expeditiously in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 5.9.2018 OP
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Gaurav Saxena vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
05 September, 2018
Judges
  • Aniruddha Singh
Advocates
  • Rajesh Singh Rathore