Allahabad High Court
Madan Mohan Singh vs State Of U.P. on 29 November, 2022
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1169 of 2021 Applicant :- Madan Mohan Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arjun Singh Kalhans 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 21.12.2020 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Lucknow, seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 0001 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 66, 66C of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police Station Cyber Crime Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.
Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for applicant is that applicant is layman and has no knowledge of fake URL and thus he has never made URL as alleged in the statement of the witnesses Hari Ram Jaisawal, Devendra and Akhilesh. It is also submitted that he is not named in the FIR. Applicant is also not involved in any illegal transportation. He has only one truck which is engaged in the transport business of one Vipin Singhal on rent basis. He is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. It is also submitted that he has neither published fake websites nor forged documents as alleged in the said crime case. Charge-sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer against the applicant without conducting fair investigation on 02.07.2022. During investigation, interim anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant vide order dated 17.08.2021 and he has cooperated with the investigation.
Learned counsel for the applicant after advancing some argument and on putting certain query by the Court submits that he does not want to press the instant anticipatory bail application on merits, however, liberty be provided to the applicant to move an appropriate application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before the concerned Court below in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.
Per contra, learned Additional Govt. Advocate for the 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 02.07.2022 in this case on the basis of cogent material against the applicant. However, he submits that in case applicant does not want to press this anticipatory bail application on merits, he has no objection to such prayer made on behalf of the applicant.
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 cases 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 relief as sought by the applicant is hereby refused.
The instant anticipatory bail application is disposed of with liberty to the applicant to move an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before the concerned court below. In case, such application is moved by the applicant, the same shall be decided according to law and in the light of judgement of the Apex Court in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra).
Order Date :- 29.11.2022 Shubham