Dismissed

Jagdish Prasad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Aug 2021ABAIL/10704/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge rejected the anticipatory bail application of Jagdish Prasad charged under Sections 504 and 307 IPC. The court held that without extraordinary circumstances or a demonstrated immediate threat of arrest, anticipatory bail cannot be granted merely on the ground that firing was assigned to a co-accused.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application was rejected. No ground found for granting anticipatory bail.

Jagdish Prasad Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10704 of 2021 Applicant :- Jagdish Prasad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Srivastava,Noor Muhammad

¶3

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant Jagdish Prasad in Case Crime No. 09 of 2021, under sections 504, 307 I.P.C., P.S.- Narkhi, District - Firozabad.

¶7

The first information report version is that on the date of incident both the applicant and the co-accused Ajeet Kumar came to the house of the informant and started abusing and coaccused Ajeet Kumar fired on the informant, who escaped but the fire hit Raju in his left leg below the knee. During the incident, the applicant had exhorted for firing.

¶8

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that because the role of firing has been assigned to the co-accused, therefore, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail. Submission is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history and applicant is prepared to furnish sureties and bonds, there is no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the evidence.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and has submitted that both the accused persons are father and son who have caused firing and got a person injured.

¶10

Considered the submissions of both the sides. the offence pertains to an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. The fact that firing was not caused by the applicant, may be the good ground for regular bail but for seeking anticipatory bail, it is not enough. The applicant while seeking anticipatory bail is required to show extraordinary reasons and also show that there is immediate threat of his arrest.No extraordinary situation has been shown and even though the first information report has been lodged more than seven months before but there is nothing on record to show that the police has made any serious effort to

¶11

arrest the accused-applicant. Hence, the anticipatory bail application is fail in both the counts.

¶12

It is pertinent to mention that the anticipatory bail is not a substitute of a regular bail and for it, some extraordinary circumstances are required in comparison to regular bail. There should be some special reason for taking recourse of the provisions of anticipatory bail. There must also be a threat of arrest of the accused. The applicant has not been able to show any real threat of arrest or any extraordinary circumstances, as such, I do not find any ground for giving benefit of anticipatory bail, hence the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant is rejected.

¶13

A direction is, however, given to the court below that in case, applicants surrender and give bail application, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously and preferably on the same day in accordance with law.

¶14

Order Date :- 19.8.2021 sailesh

Jagdish Prasad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Prasad 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Shekhar Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaytri Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Islam Vs State of U.P.

Birpal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aarif Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rikant Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another