Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 18967 of 2021 Applicant :- Vijay Shankar Dubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satish Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Vijay Shankar Dubey, seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Criminal Case No. 1249 of 2019 (State vs. Vijay Shanker), pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge, Bansgaon, Gorakhpur arising out of charge sheet dated 13.1.2018 filed in Case Crime No. 218 of 2017, under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C., Police Station- Belghat, District Gorakhpur.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature which has been given a different colour by lodging of F.I.R. It is argued that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted by the police on which cognizance has been taken on 17.4.2019. Even therein the allegations against the applicant are vague and with malafide intentions. It is argued that during pendency of the investigation the applicant has challenged the present F.I.R. in a writ petition being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 28062 of 2017 (Vijay Shanker Dubey vs. State of U.P. and others), wherein an order was passed directing that the investigation of said case shall go on but the petitioner shall not be arrested till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. subject to his extending full co-operation during investigation, after which investigation concluded and charge sheet has been submitted. It is argued that there is no credible evidence against the applicant. The applicant are having no criminal history as stated in para-29 of the affidavit.
Learned State counsel opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and argued that the applicant had challenged the entire proceedings of the present case after filing of the charge sheet in Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15627 of 2020 (Vijay Shanker Dubey vs. State of U.P. and another) in which this Court had refused to quash the proceedings and the charge sheet but had directed that if the applicant surrenders before the court below and applies for bail within 30 days, then his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously. By the said order, for a period of 30 days, coercive action against the applicant was stayed. It is argued that even after the order dated 25.11.2020 passed in the said application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has not appeared before the court concerned and on a call through the summoning order and after rejection of 482 Cr.P.C. application filed by him. It is further argued that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted upon which cognizance has already been taken. There are allegations against the applicant.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that there are allegations against the applicant. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against him. The applicant had challenged the proceedings and charge sheet before this Court in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15627 of 2020 (Vijay Shanker Dubey vs. State of U.P. and another) in which the Court has observed that disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered and had refused for quashing of the proceedings and the charge sheet. The Court had then passed an order for disposal of bail application of the applicant by the court below, if he applies for bail within 30 days.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that there are allegations against the applicant and offence against him is made out and also looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is rejected.
(Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 20.12.2021 Naresh