Parvez Khan vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 2015 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 84
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3408 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Parvez Khan
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Gyan Prakash Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Desh Ratan Chaudhary
 

 
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Desh Ratan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Parvez Khan with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime no.1298 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. Police Station Khurja Nagar, district Bulandshahar.

The first information report of this incident was lodged by the complainant against five named accused persons including the applicant regarding property dispute.

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case only just to tarnish his image and to injure the reputation in the society by having him so arrested. He submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the evidence. The applicant has definite apprehension that he 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 applicant. 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./