Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 14702 of 2021 Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Vajpeyi,Praveen Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State. Perused the record.
2. The instant application is being moved by the applicant invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. that he has every reason to believe that he may be arrested on the accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence in connection with Case No.11890 of 2020 (State Vs. Ved Prakash and others), arising out of Case Crime No.698 of 2018, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Sector 39 Noida, District-Gautam Budh 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 30.06.2021.
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 vs. State of UP), hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned AGA as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (UP Amendment) is not required.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant was a power of attorney holder of the plot in question; he sold the plot on the basis of power of attorney but he is not the beneficiary of consideration because consideration was received by actual owner. It is a dispute of civil nature. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that possession was given to the purchaser at the time of sale.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 argued that real owner of the plot in question was father of the applicant. He is also co-accused in this case, hence consideration was received by both the accused persons. It is also submitted that plot in question was already sold to someone else and opposite party no.2 has not got possession of the plot so far.
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 :- 6.10.2021 P.S.Parihar