Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 19269 of 2021 Applicant :- Rakshapal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, Akhilesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Diwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S. B. Maurya, learned A.G.A./Brief Holder appearing for the State and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Rakshapal, seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Case Crime No. 0330 of 2019, under Sections 420, 406, 409 I.P.C., Police Station- Highway, District Mathura, during pendency of investigation.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is a Director of Kalpvat Real Estate Ltd. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant and the first informant Pappan Khan have entered into a settlement for the dispute in question and as such, the matter has been settled between them. It is argued that although the applicant had approached this Court by filing a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6480 of 2021, copy of which is annexure no. 3 to the affidavit, in which he had challenged the F.I.R. of the present case but the same was subsequently dismissed. It is argued that the present dispute, if any, is a monitory dispute which attracted civil consequences but the F.I.R. has been lodged just in order to give the case a different colour. It is further argued that the co-accused Bhanu Pratap Singh has been granted regular bail by the Sessions Judge, Mathura vide order dated 28.9.2021. It is argued that the applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para- 13 of the affidavit.
Learned State counsel opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and argued that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. There are allegations against him. The present case is a case in which investors were given false promise of heavy incentives and their money was invested in the company which was an act of cheating. It is argued that the applicant is Director of the said company and as such he is responsible for the same.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is Director of the company which had alluded investors and had taken money from them on a false promise of giving them benefit which was not given.
Looking to facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is rejected.
(Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 20.12.2021 Naresh