In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 50096 of 2019, the applicant sought anticipatory bail facing arrest under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B IPC. The court rejected the application because non-bailable warrants had already been issued against the applicant in 2019.
Application rejected; anticipatory bail not granted.
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. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50096 of 2019
Applicant :- Furkan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shahabuddin Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vikas Sahai, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in light of the apprehension of the arrest of the applicant in Case Crime No. 656 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C., police station Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad.
The Court finds itself unable to entertain this application since learned A.G.A. informs that Non Bailable Warrants have been issued against the applicant on 23 April 2019. The First Information Report itself was registered in the year 2017. In view of the above and bearing in mind the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 8 SCC 730] , the application is rejected.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 faraz
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail application should be entertained despite issuance of non-bailable warrants.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)Referred¶7
Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 8 SCC 730] · Who else cites this
Furkan
Yashwant Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
