Allahabad High Court
Anil Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Of Home And 3 ... on 6 May, 2024
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34731
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 943 of 2024
Applicant :- Anil Kumar Pandey
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Of Home And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhat Kumar Upadhyay,Amit Kumar Singh,Pragya Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State respondent.
The applicant has approached this Court in anticipatory bail seeking indulgence of the Court in Case Crime no.88 of 2021 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 307, 325, 427 IPC Police Station-Tarabganj District-Gonda.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated in the case.
It is further submitted that there is a backdrop in the instant FIR, inasmuch as, the complainant was already facing trial in Sessions Trial no.305 of 1998 wherein Sri Chintamani and another co-accused Amresh convicted under Section 307 IPC vide judgment and order dated 24.01.2008, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure no.3.
It is further submitted that since there was animosity between the applicant it is in this view, the applicant and his family have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that on a perusal of the FIR, it would indicate that only role assigned to the applicant is of extortion. It is further submitted that in the facts and circumstances the applicant may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.
Learned AGA has opposed the anticipatory bail application and submits that insofar as the present applicant is concerned, specific role of exhortation has been clearly assigned to the applicant. The applicant has criminal history apart from the fact the applicant had earlier preferred an application seeking quashing of the charge sheet which came to be rejected by the Court in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C bearing no.9285 of 2023 which came to be decided on 25.09.2023. The application moved by the applicant seeking discharge has also been made which has been rejected fixing date 21.03.2024 and in the aforesaid facts and circumstances where clear allegations have been made against the applicant and duly from the material on record, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record including the fact and noticing the contents of the FIR and the fact that the earlier application of the applicant seeking quashing of the charge sheet has been rejected leaving it open for the applicant to process his application for discharge had also not found favour in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present application.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to grant the benefit of the anticipatory bail. Consequently, the present anticipatory bail application is dismissed, leaving it open for the applicant to take recourse as it may available to him under law. However, in case the application for regular bail is made the same shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned in light of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC Online SC 825.
Order Date :- 6.5.2024
Harshita
