Vakalatnama filed by Sri Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record.
The applicant apprehends his arrested in connection with Case No.18445 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.397 of 2015, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow.
Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. The applicant is neither the witness of property in question nor purchaser nor seller. The only allegation against the applicant is of conspiracy of alleged Will. There is nothing to connect the applicant with the alleged Will or its fabrication. The applicant is a Village Pradhan and on account of political rivalry between the applicant and the opposite party no.2, the instant case has been lodged.
Learned Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant is permanent resident of Lucknow and is ready to co-operate in the trial. In case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement or threat or promise to any person acquaintance with the instant case. The applicant shall also not tamper the evidence or influence the prosecution witnesses.
Per contra, Sri Alok Saran, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the submissions of learned Counsel for the applicant and has submitted that the FIR was lodged in the year 2015. The Investigating Officer after conducting the investigation had submitted final report. Against the final report, the opposite party no.2 had filed protest petition upon which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance vide order dated 11.04.2019 and issued summons to the applicant. Being aggrieved by the summoning order, the applicant preferred Criminal Misc. Case No.3711 of 2019 (under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) before this Court which is still pending. Since, no protection has been granted to the applicant in this petition, vide order dated 22.02.2021, the learned Magistrate has issued non-bailable warrant against the applicant.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has further submitted that since the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is still pending before this Court and also non-bailable warrant has been issued, there is no occasion to prefer the instant anticipatory bail application. The petitioner had to apply regular bail. The instant bail application is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
Sri Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 has also vehemently opposed the submissions of learned Counsel for the applicant and supported the arguments advanced by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In the instant case, after issuance of summoning order on 11.04.2019, the applicant preferred a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in the year 2019 challenging the correctness of the said order. Thereafter vide order dated 22.02.2021, non-bailable warrant was issued by the learned Magistrate against the applicant. After issuance of non-bailable warrant, the applicant preferred an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow which was rejected vide order dated 12.03.2021, which is totally an abuse of the process of the law. After issuance of non-bailable warrant, the applicant had to appear before the court below and sought for regular bail but inspite of filing the regular bail, the instant anticipatory bail has been filed by the applicant before the learned Sessions Judge and thereafter before this Court.
From the perusal of the contentions made in the anticipatory bail application and after considering the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and also the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 6.4.2021 akverma