The court rejected an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. due to the apprehension of arrest in a case involving offences including POCSO and IPC charges, noting the existence of a victim's statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
The prayer for anticipatory bail is refused and the application is 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. - 4138 of 2020
Applicant :- Amarnath Yadav Alias Monu Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- M J Akhtar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in light of the apprehension of the arrest of the applicant in Case Crime No. 46 of 2020, under Sections 454, 354Kha, 323, 427 IPC, Section 7/8 POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST Act, Police station Kaptanganj, District Kushinagar.
The Court finds no ground to accord the facility of anticipatory bail to the applicant bearing in mind the categorical statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. pursuant to which the provisions of Section 376 IPC have also been added. The prayer so made is refused.
The application stands rejected .
Order Date :- 5.10.2020 LA/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when there is a categorical statement by the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
8 provisions across 4 enactments
Amarnath Yadav Alias Monu Yadav
State of U.P.
Yashwant Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
