In a bail application, the court rejected the request for anticipatory bail filed by Firtu and another, holding that no exceptional grounds existed to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction despite prior interim protection.
Application for anticipatory bail 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. - 89
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10135 of 2021
Applicant :- Firtu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Nath Yadav,Abhishek Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. R.N. Yadav, learned counsel for applicants and Mr. Indra Pal Singh, learned A.G.A. for State assisted by Mr. P.K. Sahi, learned Brief Holder.
This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicants Firtu and Brij Kumar in connection with Case Crime No. 192 of 2018, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., P.S. Shahganj (Kotwali), District Jaunpur.
Learned counsel for applicants contends that applicants had earlier approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 27613 of 2018 (Firtu and another Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others). This Court did not quash the F.I.R., but granted interim protection to the applicants by staying their arrest till the submission of police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. As police report has now been submitted, applicants have approached this Court by means of present application for anticipatory bail.
Mr. R.N. Yadav, learned counsel for applicants contends that applicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in above mentioned case crime number. Applicants have criminal antecedents and there is criminal history against applicants. There are some cases registered against applicant 2, however, he has been acquitted in the aforesaid cases.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed this application for anticipatory bail. Learned A.G.A. contends that charge sheet has been submitted in the year 2018 and cognizance upon which has been taken by Court concerned, vide Cognizance Taking Order dated 11.12.2019. Learned A.G.A. has invited the attention of the Court to the judgement of this Court in Aditya vs. State of U.P. bearing Criminal Misc. Application for Anticipatory Bail No. 8285 of 2020, wherein this Court has laid down parameters regarding grant of anticipatory bail after submission of charge sheet.
On the aforesaid legal premise, learned A.G.A. contends that no such exigency exists in the present case, on the basis of which applicant is liable to be extended benefit of anticipatory bail.
Having heard learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material brought record as well as complicity of accused and also judgement of Apex Court in P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019, SC 4198, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr. P. C.
Accordingly, present application for anticipatory bail is rejected.
Order Date :- 1.6.2021 HSM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicants given the submission of the charge sheet and prior interim protection.
Whether exceptional grounds exist to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. after the charge sheet is filed.
Firtu
Brij Kumar
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
