Madhup vs State Of U.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 15662 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Madhup vs State Of U.P. on 6 May, 2024

Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:80537
 
Court No. - 79
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1272 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Madhup
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Kartikeya Shukla
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
 

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

This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant after rejecting his anticipatory bail application by the order dated 02.01.2024 passed by Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act (V.B.U.P.S.E.B.)/Additional Session Judge, Meerut, seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 139 of 2019, under Sections 409, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B IPC and Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Iglas, District Aligarh.

The first information report of this case was lodged on 27.03.2019 against 08 accused persons, including the applicant, for the alleged offence under Sections 409, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B IPC and Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with regard to misappropriation of government fund of Rs. 4,11,260/-. After culmination of investigation, charge-sheet no. 9A of 2024 was submitted on 01.05.2024 against the applicant, who is Village Development Officer, and Smt. Moharshree, who is Village Pradhan of the concerned village.

Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and charge-sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer against the applicant without conducting fair investigation.

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for State of U.P. opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant by contending that Investigating Officer after due investigation submitted charge sheet dated 01.05.2024 in this case on the basis of cogent material against the applicant, therefore, as on date cognizable offence is made out against the applicant and it cannot be presumed that he has been falsely implicated.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material brought on record as well as complicity of accused-applicant 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 applicant.

Accordingly, the instant application for anticipatory bail is rejected.

Order Date :- 6.5.2024

Shubham