Mohamad Saleem And Another vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 2005 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 84
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2414 of 2022
 
Applicant :- Mohamad Saleem And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Anil Kumar Tiwari, Pushpendra Kumar Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Purhpendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Mohammad Saleem and Imran Khan with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime no.425 of 2018, under Sections 420, 379, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sadar Bazar, district Shahjahanpur.

The first information report of this incident was lodged by the informant against three named persons including application. It was alleged in the first information report that named persons had stolen the ATM card of informant's daughter and withdrawn the money from her account.

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case only just to injure their reputation in the society, hence they are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The applicants have definite apprehension that they may be arrested by the police any time.

At the very outset, leaned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. contends that coercive process has also been issued against applicants. Placing reliance upon the judgement of Apex Court in Prem Shankar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 955, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 171, Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8SCC 730 and State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Mohd. Sajid Husain, (2008) 1 SSC 2013, he submits that once coercive process has been issued against applicant, no protection can be extended to applicant in present application for anticipatory bail.

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 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 view of above, present application for anticipatory bail is liable to be rejected.

Accordingly, present application for anticipatory bail is rejected.

Order Date :- 5.5.2022

R./