High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejected an anticipatory bail application. The court found no case for exercising discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. due to the gravity of accusations involving communal harmony and potential misuse of liberty.
Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. rejected; no anticipatory bail granted.
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. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10381 of 2021
Applicant :- Gulsadiq Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Narendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant after rejecting his anticipatory bail application by the order dated 04.03.2021 passed by Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, seeking anticipatory bail in Case No. 1390 of 2020 in pursuance of Crime No. 394 of 2020, under Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2008, Police Station Kotwali Farrukhabad, District Farrukhabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case under Section 66 of I.T. Act and he has not posted the matter on Facebook as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that applicant is a student and he has been implicated due to enmity with the informant. He further invited attention of the Court to the bail application moved by the applicant before the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail wherein in para 3 it is stated that earlier the applicant was held by the police under Sections 107/116/151 IPC and he was in jail for a week and thereafter he was released on bail. He further denied that such post was made by the applicant. Lastly, it is submitted that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is
released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the investigation.
Learned Additional Government Advocate, who has accepted notice of this case on behalf of State of U.P. has opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. It is submitted that charge-sheet has been submitted by IO after investigation and it has come that the alleged post was made by the applicant on the Facebook which will disturb the communal harmony of the State.
In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as mentioned above, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicant as per prosecution case, gravity and nature of accusation, this Court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is made out in favour of applicant.
Accordingly, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
Order Date :- 2.6.2021 V.S.Singh
Digitally signed by Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal Date: 2021.06.03 16:23:13 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given the gravity of the charge and apprehension of arrest.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gulsadiq
State of U.P.
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
