Jitendra Harijan v. State of U.P. and Another
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court refused to entertain an application for anticipatory bail filed by the applicant in respect of an FIR registered for offences under Sections 323 and 354 IPC, holding that the granting of a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. precluded further comfort for bail.
What did the court decide?
The application for anticipatory bail was rejected as it was incompetent to be entertained given the issue of a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
What the court decided
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56871 of 2019
Applicant :- Jitendra Harijan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kishore,Anand Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri I.P. Srivastava, 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. 90 of 2019, under Sections 323, 354 IPC, police station Adalhat, District Mirzapur.
It is not disputed and as is recorded in the order passed by the Sessions Judge, a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has already been issued against the applicant. In view thereof and bearing in mind the decision of the Supreme Court in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 8 SCC 730] , the Court finds itself unable to entertain this application, which shall stand rejected .
Order Date :- 20.12.2019 Vivek Kr.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can entertain an anticipatory bail application when a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has already been issued against the applicant in the same proceedings.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Jitendra Harijan
- respondent
State of U.P.
Coram
Yashwant Varma
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · December
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/56871/2019
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court