Chaitanya Singh J. rejected the anticipatory bail application of Rajesh Rathore, holding that a prima-facie case was made out against him based on liquor recovery from his vehicle and that the matter required no interference with the impugned order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38605 of 2019 Applicant :- Rajesh Rathore Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the record.
I have perused the FIR as well as the order by means of which the anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicant has been rejected.
The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is own of the vehicle in question. Even though the applicant has not been caught at the spot and he was not named in the FIR also. The other co-accused i.e. the driver of the vehicle in question has already appeared and surrendered before the court concerned and obtained bail. It has been further contended that matter needs a deeper and fairer investigation before any arrest should be given effect to. Therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has very strongly opposed the prayer for bail and contended that there is huge recovery of liqueur was found in the truck in question and the applicant has remedy to obtain regular bail.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The court concerned at this stage has to see only prima-facie case and it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. Further, the plea raised before this Court would require leading of evidence, which can be raised before the court concerned at the appropriate Stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused.
Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 24.9.2019/VKG
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail despite recovery of liquor from the vehicle he owns.
Whether prima-facie case is made out against the applicant warranting arrest.
Rajesh Rathore
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
