Pradyuman Patva And 6 Others vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 2752 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 80
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3696 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Pradyuman Patva And 6 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sandeep Kumar Rai
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

Case called out. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the applicants to press this application and also no one has appeared on behalf of the first informant whereas learned AGA for the State is present, therefore, I myself have perused the material on record.

This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicants after rejecting their anticipatory bail application by the order dated 16.01.2021 passed by Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), Court No. 3, Gorakhpur seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 728 of 2020, under Sections 452, 506, 323, 147 I.P.C., Police Station Khorabar, District Gorakhpur.

On going through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application, I find that the applicants have filed the instant application on the ground that they have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any crime for the alleged offence. They have also stated that they have apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, they are released on bail, they would not misuse the liberty

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 28.01.2021 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 cannot 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 :- 13.5.2022

Shubham