Atal Kumar v. State of U.P

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10259 of 2023 Applicant :- Atal Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶2This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Atal Kumar seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 584 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 10 of Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, Police Station Kwarsi, District-Aligarh.

¶3In a competitive examination, in place of present applicant co-accused Jitendra Kumar as an imposter appeared but he was held by the examination agency. FIR was lodged on 27.6.2023 and investigation started, which is going on.

¶4It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that investigation is going-on and till date no charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused applicant. It is further submitted that on the date of examination the accused applicant did not appear in the examination. It is further submitted that the applicant has absolutely no knowledge as to why the co-accused Jitendra Kumar appeared in his place in the said examination as an imposter. It is further submitted that the co-accused Jitendra Kumar is completely stranger for the accused applicant and he does not know him at all. It is further submitted that the criminal history of the applicant is explained in the affidavit and he is cooperating with the investigation. It is lastly submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶5Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. He has impressed upon the statement of co-accused Jitendra Kumar who was confessed before the police that on the pretext of some gratification he became ready to appear in the examination for the present accused applicant. It is further submitted that both the accused persons are good friends and that is why and also for taking some money from the applicant co-accused Jitendra Kumar became ready to appear in the examination.

¶6In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶7Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, I deem it not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. Prayer made in the application is refused.

¶8The anticipatory bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 19.10.2023 Fhd High Court of Judicature at Allahabad