The single judge rejected an application for anticipatory bail filed by Kamlesh Nishad. The court found no exceptional grounds to exercise discretion, considering the nature of the offenses and the applicant's criminal history, citing the Apex Court judgment in P. Chidambaram.
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. - 10274 of 2021 Applicant :- Kamlesh Nishad @ Kalle Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
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.
This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant Kamlesh Nishad @ Kalle in connection with Case Crime No. 55 of 2021, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Gida, District Gorakhpur.
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 named accused whereas 3-4 unknown persons have also been nominated as accused.
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 as applicant has not categorically stated about his criminal history. As per instructions received by him applicant has criminal history of thirteen cases. Learned A.G.A. further 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 :- 4.6.2021 Gaurav
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving serious offenses like armed robbery and attempt to murder given the applicant's criminal history.
Whether exceptional grounds exist to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of EnforcementReferred¶7
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019, SC 4198 · Who else cites this
Kamlesh Nishad @ Kalle
State of U.P.
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
