Dismissed

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Jul 2020ABAIL/3123/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the applicant's anticipatory bail application pending a criminal investigation. However, granting one month time to seek regular bail from the Sessions Court, the Court directed that no coercive action be taken during this period contingent upon the applicant's appearance before the lower court by the expiry date.

What did the court decide?

One month time granted to appear before the Sessions Court for regular bail; coercive action stayed during this period.

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3123 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla,Ashutosh Prasad Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.P.S. Parmar, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Amrit Raj Chaurasia, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

A counter affidavit has been prepared by learned counsel for the complainant which has been served upon Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant in the Court today. He is directed to file the same in the registry of this Court during the course of the day. The office shall place it on record as soon as the same is filed.

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there are cross reports of the incident and both sides have received injuries. He further submits that the applicant was not challaned under Section 151, 107, 116 Cr.P.C., the said fact is mentioned in paragraph no.10 of the present bail application. The applicant is stated to be an practising Advocate before this Court, the said fact is mentioned in para no.3 of the present bail application. Though there are five injured persons who received injuries in the present case but from the side of the applicant some persons also received injuries.

¶8

Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that there has been cross reports of the incident and both side have received injuries and some of the injured from the side of the complainant have also suffered fracture on their person. He further submits that the applicant had earlier filed anticipatory bail application no.3504 of 2020 before this Court which has been rejected by coordinate Bench of this Court on 26.6.2020. The applicant has also preferred an anticipatory bail application before the court below which is pending and police report has been called to which learned counsel for the applicant submits that the judgeship of Allahabad is closed due to Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19), the same could not be pressed and disposed of. He undertakes that the applicant would not press anticipatory bail application which is pending before the court below. The counsel for the applicant further prayed that he may be allowed some time to appear and seek regular bail

¶9

from the court below as the court of Sessions Judge is closed due to Covid-19 as it is in containment zone.

¶10

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 bail to the applicant Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, involved in Case Crime No.242 of 2020, u/s 147, 149, 323, 427, 504, 506, 307 and 308 IPC, P.S. Ghoorpur, district Prayagraj.

¶11

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected .

¶12

However, considering the fact that the co-accused of the present case have been granted relief for one month to appear before the court below as has been referred above, one month time is also allowed to the applicant to appear before the court below to seek regular bail u/s 439 Cr.P.C, till then no coercive action shall be taken against the accused applicant, but if he does not appear before court at the expiry of that period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶13

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 S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶14

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.

¶15

Order Date :- 6.7.2020 Gaurav

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sarvesh Vs State of U.P.

Abdul Rehman Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sakshi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prashant Tiwari and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rajeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.