Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 15360 of 2021 Applicant :- Nitin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.
(1) Heard Shri Akash Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A and perused the record.
(2) The instant application is being moved by the applicant namely, Nitin invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. that they has every reason to believe that they may be arrested on the accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence in connection with Case Crime no.611 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 120B and 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3, 9, 6, 10 UP Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998, Police Station- Sector 58, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar.
(3) From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court after getting his anticipatory bail rejected from the Court of Sessions vide order dated 13.07.2021.
(4) Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.
(5) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. 17 other co- accused persons have been granted regular bail in this matter. It is emphatically submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that this FIR is anti time. There is no clue as to how the complainant got the information of offence. It is submitted that applicant did not participate in the examination.
(6) Learned AGA has submitted that this is a matter of solver gang. Applicant was going to appear in examination in the place of other candidate, but was caught on the entry gate.
(7) Taking into account the severity of allegations, this Court feels that in order to have indepth probe into the matter, the Investigating Officer of the case should be given fullest liberty to choose its own course for the transparent investigation. Hence, this Court is not inclined to exercise its powers in favour of the applicant, and thus the present anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 30.9.2021 Ashutosh Pandey