Dismissed

Vijay Nishad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Jun 2021ABAIL/10272/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected an application for anticipatory bail filed by Vijay Nishad in a case involving sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC. The court, considering the applicant's prior criminal history and referencing P. Chidambaram, found no exceptional grounds to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail rejected; no bail granted.

Vijay Nishad Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 89 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10272 of 2021 Applicant :- Vijay Nishad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶3

Heard Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for applicant on audio link and Mr. Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot along with Mr. Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. for State assisted by Mr. P.K. Sahi, learned Brief Holder for the State.

¶4

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant Vijay Nishad in connection with Case Crime No. 55 of 2021, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Gida, District Gorakhpur.

¶5

Perusal of record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 1.3.2021, a prompt FIR dated 1.3.2021 was lodged by S.H.O Sudhir Kumar Singh which was registered as Case Crime No. 55 of 2021, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C. In the aforesaid FIR three persons namely Kamlesh Nishad @ Kalle, Vijay Nishad, Amarjeet Nishad have been nominated as main accused whereas 3-4 unknown persons have also been nominated as an accused.

¶6

At the very outset learned A.G.A. contends that averment made in para no.12 of the affidavit filed in support of anticipatory bail application are wholly vague in as much as applicant has not categorically stated about his criminal history. As per instructions received by him applicant has criminal history of eleven cases. 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.

¶7

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.

¶8

Accordingly, present application for anticipatory bail is rejected .

¶9

Order Date :- 4.6.2021 Gaurav

Vijay Nishad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Nishad 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulab and 23 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P

Sunil Modanwal @ Jangali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamlesh Nishad @ Kalle Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Rawat and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amrjeet Nishad Vs State of U.P.