Anoop Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12865 of 2023 Applicant :- Anoop Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for State and also perused the material available on record.

¶3The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to FIR/Case Crime No. 205 of 2020, under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C., P.S.- Modi Nagar, District-Ghaziabad.

¶4As per prosecution story, the applicant, who happens to be the director in the Company Bhumi Sales India Limited, having corporate office at Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, is stated to have duped several persons to the tune of crores of rupees on the pretext that they shall get hefty profit on the money invested.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has next stated that in all, three cases of similar nature have been instituted against the applicant and he is on bail in one case, while in another, the proceedings have been stayed at Uttarakhand High Court. It is next stated that the applicant was in jail when the instant FIR was instituted. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence, as the applicant is an employee in the company and has been falsely shown to be the director in it. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶6Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that the applicant has been in jail in the case of similar nature at Uttarakhand and is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶7Considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also the facts that two more FIRs have been instituted against the applicant and he was incarcerated in one of the said cases and the instant FIR was instituted during his incarceration in jail at Uttarakhand, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant as the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant pertain to regular bail application and cannot be agitated at this stage u/s 438 Cr.P.C.

¶8In view of the above, the present anticipatory bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

¶9It 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. (Justice Krishan Pahal) Order Date :- 1.12.2023 Shalini High Court of Judicature at Allahabad