In a criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the court rejected the plea after perusing the FIR and hearing counsel. The court found the gravity of the allegation and the applicant's criminal history precluded the grant of anticipatory bail.
Application for anticipatory bail rejected.
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. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1072 of 2020
Applicant :- Lourence Attri Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Counter and rejoinder affidavits filed today are taken on record.
Heard Sri R.K. Srivastava, 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. 671 of 2019, under Sections 504, 506, 307 IPC, Police Station Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar 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 counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity with his brother though it is alleged in the F.I.R. that the applicant had fired on the first informant but he did not receive any injury. He further submitted that criminal history of three cases against the applicant are of petty nature, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail with the contention that though no firearm injury was received by the injured however the applicant had come along with two hired assailants who were arrested on the spot by the villagers and also the applicant has criminal history of three cases and looking to the gravity of offence, no case for grant indulgence is made out.
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.
Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected.
Order Date :- 12.2.2020 Dhirendra/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant in a prosecution for sections 504, 506, and 307 IPC.
Whether the criminal history of the applicant and the gravity of the offence preclude the grant of bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Lourence Attri
Rajul Bhargava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
