The Court in Criminal Misc. A. 2151 of 2020 rejected the applicant Krishna's petition for anticipatory bail alleging involvement in a case involving affray, voluntary causing hurt, and attempt to murder.
Application for anticipatory bail rejected; liberty to move regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. allowed; interim orders vacated.
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. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2151 of 2020
Applicant :- Krishna Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Karan Singh Yadav
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Abhishek, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gaurav Pratap Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the record. Sri K.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant is not present even in the revised call.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the present there were five accused persons including the applicant out of which four of them including the applicant have been assigned the role of catching hold of the victim whereas the role of firing shot at the victim has been assigned to co-accused Anshul Gurjar. He submits that three coaccused, who are assigned the role of catching hold the victim along with applicant, have been arrested by the police and so far as the applicant is concerned, his arrest is not required in the present case. He submits that the villagers have given affidavit that the applicant and co-accused persons have gone to get the weight of sugar cane and sugar cane centre. He submits that the informant of the case, who was informed by his son about the incident, has denied the incident in question, hence anticipatory bail may be granted to the applicant.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the pariticipation of the applicant along with other co-accused persons is evident from the F.I.R. itself. Moreover, the statement of the victim under section 161 Cr.P.C. is yet to be recorded.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the submission advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, I find no good ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant Krishna involved in Case Crime No. 47 of 2020 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 56, 307 I.P.C., police station Medical, District Meerut.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected .
However, the applicant will be at liberty to move regular bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C., if so advised.
Interim order, if any, granted earlier shall stands vacated.
The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the
computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 17.9.2020 Shiraz
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given his alleged role in the incident.
Krishna
Ramesh Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
