Ayyub v. State of Up
Case brief
What is this about?
Single judge order dismissing anticipatory bail application (Crl. Misc. BA No. 34309 of 2019) filed by Ayyub in a case involving IPC Sections 354, 376, 384, 452, 506. Court held no case for indulgence made out.
What did the court decide?
Application for anticipatory bail rejected.
What the court decided
Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34309 of 2019
Applicant :- Ayyub Opposite Party :- State Of Up Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Dutt Awasthi,Girja Shanker Sen Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 75 of 2019, under Sections 452, 354, 376, 384, 506 IPC, Police Station Aliganj, District Bareilly with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
I have perused the FIR as well as the order by means of which the anticipatory bail application has been rejected by the court below.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the impugned FIR and also looking to the seriousness of the allegation as made in the FIR, gravity of offence and the severity of punishment and the fact as advanced by the learned AGA, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant in a case involving serious allegations under IPC Sections 354, 376, 384, 452, 506.
Whether the facts disclosed in the FIR warrant an indulgence in the form of anticipatory bail.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Ayyub
- respondent
State Of Up
Coram
Vipin Sinha
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · September
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/34309/2019
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court