The court considered an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It rejected the plea finding no basis for apprehension of arrest and noting that the charge sheet challenge was already negatived.
Prayer for anticipatory bail was refused and application 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. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2362 of 2020
Applicant :- Pintoo Agrawal @ Pankaj Agrawal And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atiqur Rahman Siddiqui,Lihazur Rahman Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Yadvesh Yadav
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Yadvesh Yadav for the informant and perused the record.
The instant application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in light of the apprehension of the arrest of the applicants in Case Crime No.971 of 2018, under Section 147, 354, 354A, 323, 376, 511, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar District Bulandshahr.
The Court finds no ground to accord the facility of anticipatory bail to the applicants bearing in mind that the case crime is of 2018 and no foundation has been laid in respect of apprehension of arrest. Additionally the Court is apprised by learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties that the challenge to the charge sheet at the behest of the applicant has already been negatived by this Court with the observation that it would be open to him to move the concerned court for regular bail.
Although the learned counsel for the applicants has sought to claim parity in terms of the order passed on Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2408 of 2020, the Court finds no force in that submission since while passing that order the learned Judge had only provided for conclusion of investigation which period has not come to an end. In any case and as is well
settled, an application for anticipatory bail must be based on a strong foundation in respect of apprehension of arrest which is found to be totally absent in the present case.
The prayer so made is refused. The application stands rejected . Order Date :- 28.9.2020 faraz
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in view of total absence of apprehension of arrest.
Whether an application for anticipatory bail can be allowed on basis of sought concluded investigation.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pintoo Agrawal and 3 Others
Yashwant Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
