SUNIL ARORA @ TINKU Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh holding brief for Smt. Gayatri Rajput, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

(2.) The present application has been moved by the accused-applicant- Sunil Arora @ Tinku in Case Crime No.660 of 2019, under Ss. 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Farrukhabad Kotwali, District Farrukhabad, with the prayer to grant him anticipatory bail in the above mentioned case.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that a false criminal case was instituted against the applicant. He after lodging of the first information report had approached this Court by filing a CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7667 of 2020 and vide order dtd. 26/11/2020 the same has been disposed of directing that till submission of police report, if any, under Sec. 173(2) Cr.P.C. applicant was granted protection from arrest subject to the condition enumerated in the order. It is submitted that the applicant had cooperated with the investigation and therefore there was no occasion for the Investigating Agency to have apprehended/ arrested the applicant and now charge sheet has been filed under Ss. 406, 504, 506 IPC and since Ss. 406 and 506 IPC are non-bailable offences, the applicant is having reasonable apprehension that the moment he will appear before the trial court for the purpose of his regular bail, the disposal of his bail application may take time and in the meantime, he may be confined in the prison and therefore, the benefit of the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773 be granted him.