Bairam Khan @ Braham Khan And 2 ... vs State Of U.P.And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 18977 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 72
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2359 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Bairam Khan @ Braham Khan And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Amul Kumar Tyagi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail as the accused-applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime No.396 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 4658, 470 and 471 IPC, Police Station Singhawali Ahir, District Baghpat.

On 2.7.2021 this Court passed the following orders in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Under Section 483 Cr.P.C.:-

"None for the applicants though the link was sent to Sri Shams Uz Zaman, learned counsel for the applicants.

Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State submits that present case of the applicant is fully covered with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1340 of 2019 decided on September 05, 2019.

It is submitted that even otherwise applicant has directly approached this Court in the light of judgment of Constitution Bench of this Court in case of Ankit Bharti vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (3) ADJ 165 (F.B.)., is not maintainable.

On perusal of the FIR, it is evident that applicants have been charged of defrauding the banks by obtaining loan using forged documents. Prima facie, it appears to be a case where in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CBI Vs. Anil Sharma; (1997) 7 SCC 187 to complete the chain, sometime custodial interrogation is must as there is large network of persons defrauding the banks and, therefore, at this stage, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.

Application fails and is dismissed."

This is second anticipatory bail application against the same cause of action.

At the very outset, learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted that this anticipatory bail application is not maintainable as the applicant without approaching before the court below has come forward before this Court. He relied upon a decision of Ankit Bharti vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (3) ADJ 165 (F.B.).

In view of the above, this anticipatory bail application is not maintainable and the same is hereby rejected. The applicant may approach before the court below for seeking such relief.

Order Date :- 28.11.2022

Virendra