Supreme Court Rebukes RBI for Remaining a Bystander as YES Bank Operated Clandestinely  ||  Supreme Court: Lower Fresh Bids Alone Cannot Justify Cancellation of an Auction  ||  Supreme Court Directs Delhi Police to Produce Section 163 BNSS Orders and Preserve CCTV Footage  ||  Supreme Court Affirms Menstrual Hygiene as a Fundamental Right, Warns States of Contempt  ||  Supreme Court Flags AI-Generated Fake Judgments Submitted in a Party’s Case Compilation  ||  Karnataka High Court: Vijay Mallya’s Flamboyant Lifestyle Hinders Settlement of Bank Claims  ||  Delhi High Court: Women can be Booked for Gang Rape without Physically Committing it  ||  Delhi High Court: Litigants Must Track Their Cases and Cannot Blame Lawyers for Their Own Inaction  ||  Allahabad High Court: Contract Workers Must Prove Work Parity With Regular Staff for Equal Pay  ||  Allahabad High Court Directs UP Trial Courts to Decide Maintenance Execution Cases Within Six Months    

Atul Kumar Tripathi vs. State Of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:101797) - (High Court of Allahabad) (05 Jun 2024)

Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice, while deciding anticipatory bail

MANU/UP/1959/2024

Criminal

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case registered under Sections - 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C.), with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

In case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

From the prosecution version and statement of informant, it appears that informant was cheated in a calculated way and malafide intention on part of applicant is writ large. The arrest of applicant was stayed during investigation, it is apparent that the arrest of the applicant was stayed due to the reason that matter was referred to mediation but there is nothing to show that applicant made any sincere effort to settle the dispute or return the amount of applicant. In view of nature of accusations, it could not be said at this stage that matter is purely civil in nature. The anticipatory bail application of co-accused has already been rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of present Court, however one of the ground of rejection is that the same was filed directly before this Court, without approaching the Session Court. It appears that role of co-accused is distinguished from the applicant, who is kingpin of the entire incident.

In view of nature of accusations, role of applicant and all attending facts of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application is rejected.

Tags : ACCUSATION   ANTICIPATORY BAIL   GRANT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved