Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13830 of 2021 Applicant :- Upindra Deep Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is permitted to correct the name of the applicant in the title head of the bail application during the course of the day. For the said purpose, he has earlier also filed supplementary affidavit, which is on record.
This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant Upendra Deep Singh in Case Crime No. 29 of 2021, under sections 379, 411, 120B I.P.C. and Section 3/2 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, P.S.- Behat, District - Saharanpur.
The first information report has been registered as a truck was found loading and transporting sand and allegation which has been made in the first information report is that the same was stole and there was no royalty for doing so, as such, damage to public property was also caused.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the royalty was shown by the driver but the same was not taken in account. Moreover, the applicant is the truck owner only and nothing was recovered from him on spot. He has been falsely implicated, therefore, it is a fit case in which the benefit of anticipatory bail may be granted. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history and applicant is prepared to furnish sureties and bonds, there is no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the evidence.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and has submitted that the royalty which was shown by the driver was not valid as there was no mention that the royalty was given for the transportation from Bharat Stone Crusher. It was stolen property which was being illegally transported, as such, there is no ground for anticipatory bail.
Considered the submissions of both the sides. It appears that the accusation against the applicant is that in his truck, stolen sand which was illegally obtained, was being transported in the truck of the applicant and it was not possible without collusion of the applicant. The grounds which are being raised in support of the anticipatory bail, may be a good ground for seeking regular bail but for anticipatory bail something more is required. The applicant has to show that there is extraordinary reason giving anticipatory bail and that there is immediate threat of arrest of the applicant. It appears that the first information report has been lodged on 13.01.2021 and there appears to be no serious effort taken by the police to cause arrest of the applicant. As such on both the counts, the application for anticipatory bail fails. Hence, I do not find any ground for giving benefit of anticipatory bail, hence the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant is rejected.
Order Date :- 27.9.2021 sailesh