Anis Ahmad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4053 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 12
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 290 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Anis Ahmad
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.118 of 2021 under sections 417, 418, 406, 120-B, 420 I.P.C., P.S. Dargah Sharif, district Bahraich.

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

Learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection that the applicant is a resident of Rajasthan. Non bailable warrants have been issued against him on 27.9.2021. He submits that the non bailable warrant could not be executed upon the applicant as he is avoiding it. He has not cooperated in the investigation at all. The anticipatory bail application has been rejected by the Sessions Court on 15.2.2022. He has approached this court after about one year of rejection of the anticipatory bail application. The investigation is going on and custodial interrogation of the applicant is required.

Learned counsel for the applicant could not give any plausible reply as to why he has approached this court after delay of almost one year. He could not also give any reply as to why he has not cooperated in the investigation.

On due consideration to the submission advanced, perusal of the record, the fact he is not cooperating in the investigation and is trying to avoid process issued by the court as also the fact that the present application has been filed after delay of one year from the date of rejection of the anticipatory bail application by the Sessions Court, as also considering the judgment dated 5.9.2019 in P. Chidambaram versus Directorate of Enforcement passed by Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1340 of 2019 and Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants.

The application is accordingly dismissed.

Learned counsel for applicant, at this stage, prays that he may be granted liberty to file regular bail application and the same may be decided in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another Special Leave to Appeal (Cri)No.5191 of 2021.

In view of the above, it is provided that in case the applicant files a regular bail application within two weeks from today, the same be decided expeditiously, strictly in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another Special Leave to Appeal (Cri)No.5191 of 2021.

Order Date :- 8.2.2023

kkb/