Vimlesh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 4864 ALL

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4864 ALL
Judgement Date : 1 June, 2022

Allahabad High Court

Vimlesh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 June, 2022

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 47
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4355 of 2022
 
Applicant :- Vimlesh And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicants in connection with Case Crime No. 65 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 354-A, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Sections 9/10 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Gagaha, District-Gorakhpur.

Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for applicants is that applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and charge-sheet has been submitted by the Investigating officer against the applicants without conducting fair investigation. It is next submitted that from the side of applicants also, F.I.R. was lodged on 12.03.2020 as Case Crime No. 0064 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504 IPC and Sections 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) SC/ST Act, Police Station Gagaha, District Gorakhpur.

Per contra learned Additional Government Advocate for the state of U.P. opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicants by contending that investigating officer after due investigation submitted charge sheet dated 28.07.2020 in this case on the basis of cogent material against the applicants, therefore as on date cognizable offence is made out against the applicants and it can not be presumed that they have been falsely implicated.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material brought on record as well as complicity of accused-applicants and also judgment of the Apex Court in the case of 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. in favour of the applicants.

Accordingly, the instant application for anticipatory bail is rejected.

Order Date :- 1.6.2022

Saurabh