Ramesh vs State Of U.P.And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 4221 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 85
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3560 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Ramesh
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pratibha Vohra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Ramesh with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime no.185 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Chandausi, district Sambhal, during pendency of investigation/trial.

The first information report of this incident was lodged by the informant in pursuance of an application moved under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. regarding forgery in the sale deed which was executed by the present applicant in favour of opposite party no.2.

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 the dispute between the parties is purely civil nature. Neither the applicant nor his heirs claim any right of ownership over the disputed land. 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 A.G.A. contends that non-bailable warrant have been issued against the applicant and coercive process has also been issued against him. 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 :- 26.5.2022

R./