Sudha Yadav @ Sangita Devi v. State of U.P. and Another
Case brief
What is this about?
This Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. held that once a process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued, the application cannot be entertained, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Lavesh.
What did the court decide?
Anticipatory bail application rejected due to issuance of proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
What the court decided
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 361 of 2020
Applicant :- Sudha Yadav @ Sangita Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Chaurasia,Shri Chand
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Om Prakash, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed by the applicant in case crime No.106 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, 1961, Police Station Cheelh, District- Mirazpur.
Learned AGA apprises the Court that a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has already been issued against the applicant. In view thereof and bearing in mind the decision of the Supreme Court in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 8 SCC 730] , the Court finds itself unable to entertain this application, which shall stand rejected .
Order Date :- 9.1.2020 Vivek Kr.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when a proclamation has already been issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Sudha Yadav @ Sangita Devi
- respondent
State of U.P.
Coram
Yashwant Varma
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · January
- Registered
- Case no.
- ABAIL/361/2020
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court