Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 19509 of 2021 Applicant :- Satvir Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
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, Satvir with a prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.673 of 2018, under Sections 60, 63, 72 of U.P. Excise Act & under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Jhinjhana, district Shamli.
The First Information Report of this incident was lodged by the opposite party no.2, Veer Singh, Sub-Inspector, Police Jhinjhana, district Shamli against two named accused persons, Harjinder Singh and Ranjeet Singh. It was alleged in the first information report that on 06.09.2018 when the complainant and other police personnel along with Excise officials intercepted a truck bearing Registration No.JK-02-X-0532 in which the police found 80 cartoons of illegal liquor. It was also alleged that co- accused Harjinder Singh and Renjeet Singh were arrested from spot and when the police interrogated them they told that the owner of the truck is the present applicant. They further said that the applicant himself has got loaded illegal liquor in the truck to supply it to various places of Uttar Pradesh. It was also mentioned that the papers, which were being carried by the co-accused Harjinder Singh and Ranjeet Singh in the truck were found to be fabricated and got prepared by the present applicant.
It is submitted that the applicant is absolutely innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case due to ulterior motive. He submitted that first information report has been lodged with object of just to injure the reputation or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. The applicant has a definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time. It is next submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the evidence.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submitted that the applicant is involved in economic offence, in which loss of public money is involved. He submitted that it is not a case of malicious prosecution of the applicant in the present case, hence the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material on record, considering the antecedents of the applicant, considering the gravity of offence, considering that the applicant is not named in the first information report, considering the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice where the acquisition has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail is rejected.
Order Date :- 20.12.2021 R./