The court rejected an anticipatory bail application citing the applicant's criminal history, lack of factual basis for non-involvement, and refusal to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
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. - 10814 of 2021
Applicant :- Ram Karan @ Kabra @ Chhutbhaiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anita Singh,Ankita Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Case called out in revised list. Contact was made with Ms. Ankita Singh, learned counsel for applicant, but she has expressed ignorance about the case.
Heard Mr. Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot along with Mr. Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. assisted by Mr. P.K Sahi, learned Brief Holder for State.
This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant Ram Karan @ Kabra @ Chhutbhaiya in connection with Case Crime No. 0070 of 2021, under sections 401, 120B IPC, P.S. Kabrai, District Mahoba.
Mr. Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot, learned A.G.A. contends that averments made in paragraph 11 of the affidavit are not only misconceived, but incorrect. For ready reference paragraph 11 of the affidavit is reproduced herein under:-
"That the applicant has been implicated in several false cases due to political motivation and partybani however the applicant was not involved actually in any crime."
Learned A.G.A. further submits that applicant has got criminal history of 14 cases apart from the case crime number giving rise to the present application for anticipatory bail.
Having heard learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material brought record as well as complicity of the 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 :- 3.6.2021 HSM
Digitally signed by Justice Rajeev Misra Date: 2021.06.03 18:09:48 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether exceptional grounds exist to exercise discretionary jurisdiction for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of EnforcementReferred¶11
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019, SC 4198 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Karan @ Kabra @ Chhutbhaiya
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
