Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8830 of 2021
Applicant :- Satvir @ Kaluwa
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Sisodia,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.
(1) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A and 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 Crime no. 0031 of 2019, under Sections 420, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Gajraula, District Amroha.
(3) From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court straightway without getting his anticipatory bail rejected from the Court of Sessions.
(4) 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 2019), 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."
(5) After interpreting the aforesaid clause, it is clear that the Legislature in its own wisdom bestowed two avenues upon the accused with a rider that if the accused has chosen to come to the High Court straightaway, then they would not be relegated back to exhaust their remedy before the Court of Session first. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti and others Vs. State of U.P. and another,
2020(3) ADJ 575 in which the Bench has directed to spell out the extraordinary and special reasons for coming to the High Court. After perusal of those pleadings/reasons in this regard, this Court is satisfied that the reasons mentioned therein are quite convincing to entertain the present anticipatory bail application before this Court itself.
(6) 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.
(7) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that allegations in the first information report regarding payment of Rs. 1,10,000/- in cash is fake. There is no evidence of the above said money and Rs. 2,00,000/- were transferred in the account of Sarvesh co-accused. Learned counsel for the applicant could not dispute the fact that applicant is owner of the vehicle in question. In registration certificate in his name is entered as owner. It is the allegation that forgery was committed in registration certificate regarding the vehicle being financed by the bank and it was disclosed later on that Rs. 4,00,000/- loan was due on this car.
(8) 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 Ravi Prakash