Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 17980 of 2021 Applicant :- Yogendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raju Kanaujia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard over anticipatory bail application, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., moved by the applicant- Yogendra Singh, in Case Crime No. 421 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., Police Station-Tirwa, District-Kannauj.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused- applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number; accused applicant is neither purchaser nor seller nor witness of execution of sale deed; applicant is ready to co-operate with the investigation; there is every likelihood of arrest by the police; hence anticipatory bail application was moved before court concerned, but it was rejected, hence this application for anticipatory bail with above prayer.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed with this contention that FIR itself mentions the conspiracy of Yogendra for getting this fraud acted upon, wherein, land of informant was transferred in the name of son-in-law of applicant; the offence for criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B IPC is also there; the investigation may be hampered in case of anticipatory bail.
Having heard and gone through material placed on record, it is apparent that land of informant was got transferred by way of forged and fictitious documents and impersonation in favour of son-in-law of the applicant; role of criminal conspiracy is there.
Considering all those facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98, no indulgence for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
Accordingly, anticipatory bail application is rejected. However, the applicant may move for regular bail.
Order Date :- 21.12.2021 Dhirendra/