Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 15715 of 2021 Applicant :- Salimuddin @ Raju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Irshad Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Meraj Ahmad Khan
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Salimuddin @ Raju with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime no. 0202 of 2021, under Sections 406 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. - Katghar, District - Moradabad.
There is serious allegation of committing breach of the agreement that took place between the complainant and present applicant Salimuddin @ Raju. As per the agreement six tons and two hundred fifteen Kilograms of brass (peetal) were agreed by the applicant to supply within two months to the complainant and even after making a payment of Rs. 19,26,745/- to the applicant, the said material of brass was not supplied by him to the complainant. The complainant demanded his money, then, he was given only a sum of Rs. 4,58,745/- and also gave some cheques which were dishonoured by the bank.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as there is no specific role assigned to the present applicant of assaulting the complainant side. There is general allegation against the applicant that he had taken Rs. 19,26,745/- from the complainant and to that effect there is no cogent evidence. The further submission is that the applicant had not taken any money and no offence of Section 406 IPC is made out against the applicant. He lastly submits that that there is no criminal history against the applicant, hence he is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The applicant has a definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant has committed breach of the written agreement and he failed to supply the brass and did not return the money given by the complainant and had returned only a sum of Rs. 4,58,745/- out of Rs. 19,26,745/- which shows that the applicant was having dishonest intention since the very beginning of the deal, that's why he has not returned the entire money of the complainant nor he supplied the brass to the complainant so far and the cheques given by the applicant were also dishonoured. The anticipatory bail is liable to be rejected.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations, considering the gravity of offence committed by the applicant, this Court finds that the FIR has not been lodged with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. No good ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant has been made out.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 17.12.2021 LBY Digitally signed by LAL BAHADUR YADAV Date: 2022.02.09 18:02:46 IST Reason:
Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad