Allahabad High Court
Rahul Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 May, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:102298
Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5317 of 2023
Applicant :- Rahul Sharma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Agarval
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Ankit Agarval, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
4. The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for anticipatory bail in Case No.28729 of 2021 (State of UP vs. Arvind Kumar Sharma and 2 others), arising out of Case Crime No.755 of 2019, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Banna Devi, District Aligarh, during the pendency of trial.
5. As per prosecution story, the applicant and other co-accused persons are said to have duped the informant of Rs.10 lakh as advance money to sell their house to the informant. The applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have neither returned the money nor executed the sale deed of the said house to the informant, rather they are stated to have sold it to someone else.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The applicant had filed a writ petition against the said institution of FIR and was granted interim protection till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.
7. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the applicant has not come with clean hands. The applicant had agitated the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and has failed in it, as such he is not entitled for anticipatory bail in the light of para-43 of the settled law of this Court in the case of Shivam vs. State of U.P. and Another reported in AirOnline 2021 All 484.
8. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the said petition was withdrawn by the applicant with liberty to file an appropriate application at appropriate forum, as such he had filed a detailed anticipatory bail application, which was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Aligarh by a detailed order. The applicant was even granted liberty by this Court vide order dated 23.2.2023 to approach the trial court for bail in the light of judgment of the Apex Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 within a period of twenty days. As such, the case of the applicant is not covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Shivam (supra).
9. After taking into consideration the rival contentions and said arguments tendered at Bar in the light of the judgment in Shivam (supra), I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
10. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected.
11. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
[Krishan Pahal, J.]
Order Date :- 11.5.2023
Vikas
