Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10053 of 2021
Applicant :- Satpal Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Prakash Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Avnish Kumar Srivastava,Priyanka Sharma
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material on record.
The instant application is being moved by the applicant invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime no.08 of 2021, under Sections 420, 406, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Civil Line, District-Meerut.
From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court straightway without getting his anticipatory bail rejected from the court below.
Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of the Court to Clause-7 of Section 438 Cr.P.C. (U.P. Act No.4 of 2021), which read thus :
"(7) If an application under this section has been made by any person to the High Court, no application by the same person shall be entertained by the Court of Session."
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 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Vs. 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.
Learned A.G.A has submitted that the present FIR was got registered by one Gurudutt Arora on 15.01.2021 with the allegation that the parties had entered into contract on 16.08.2012 and there was a deal between them that they would sell the flat after construction. It is alleged that the applicant, in the clandestine way, has sold out three flats amounting to Rs.36,27,762/- and digested the entire amount. There is per se cheating, fraud and misappropriation of funds.
Taking into account the role attributed to the applicant in commission of offence, the Court feels that in order to have in-depth probe into the matter, the Investigating Officer of the case should be given fullest liberty to choose its own course for the transparent investigation.
Thus, giving a panoramic view of the matter, the Court is not inclined to exercise its powers in favour of the applicants, and thus the present anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021/Sumit S