Cr.M.C. No. 274 of 2020. Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by minors in case under various IPC sections, holding that a petition alleging apprehension of arrest at their behest was clearly misconceived.
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. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 274 of 2020
Applicant :- Shahzan @ Mohd. Sadan (Minor) And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vikas Sahai, the learend A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed by the applicants in case crime No.372 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 224, 332, 333, 353, 342, 307, 323, 504, 506, 34, 225 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, Police Station Puramufti, District- Kaushambi.
Admittedly the applicants are minors. A petition alleging apprehension of arrest at their behest is clearly misconceived.
Consequently, the application is rejected .
Order Date :- 8.1.2020 Vivek Kr.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an anticipatory bail application filed by minors alleging apprehension of arrest based on a misconceived petition should be entertained.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shahzan @ Mohd. Sadan
State of U.P.
Yashwant Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
