Smt. Rubina vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 6023 ALL

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 6023 ALL
Judgement Date : 4 June, 2021

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Rubina vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 June, 2021

Bench: Rajeev Misra




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 89
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10294 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Smt. Rubina
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

Heard Mr. K.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for applicant, who is available on video link and Mr. Indrapal Singh Rajpoot, Mr. Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. assisted by Mr. P.K. Sahi, learned brief-holder for State.

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Smt. Rubina in connection with Case Crime No.1014 of 2017, under Sections 420, 406, 498, 120B, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 67 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police Station- Sadar Bazar, District- Agra.

At the very outset, learned A.G.A. contends that in the present case charge-sheet has been submitted on 17.04.2018 upon which cognizance has been taken by court concerned vide Cognizance Taking Order dated 19.04.2018.

Mr. K.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant had challenged the entire proceedings of consequential criminal case by way of Application (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) No.22533 of 2018, "Hazi Anees Shekh and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another", wherein an interim dated 05.07.2018 was passed. However, subsequently, Apex Court vide order dated 06.01.2020, which is on record as Annexure-5 to the affidavit, has set aside the interim order dated 05.07.2018. As such, no interim order is operating in favour of applicant, since 06.01.2020.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material brought on record as well as complicity of accused and also judgment of Apex Court in P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the present application for anticipatory bail is rejected.

Order Date :- 4.6.2021/Saif