The Allahabad High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC. The court held that interference impedes the investigation and referred the applicants to surrender within ten days without coercive action.
Ten days protection from coercive action granted pending surrender by applicants.
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. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11854 of 2021
Applicant :- Pankaj Sharma And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Balbir Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. Perused the record. By means of the present application the applicants are seeking his anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.335 of 2020, under Sections 452, 352, 323, 504, 506 and 325 IPC, Police StationSasni Gate, District-Aligarh.
From the record, it is evident that the applicants have approached this Court straightway
without their anticipatory bail rejected from the court below.
Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the after investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet and learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in the matter. Learned counsel for the applicants has raised number of legal as well as factual aspect of the matter which could be well appreciated only before appropriate forum.
The investigation is going on and it would not be proper for the Court to interfere in the same. Taking into account the role attributed to the applicant in commission of offence, the Court feels that in order to have indepth probe into the matter, the Investigating Officer of the case should be given fullest liberty to choose its own course for the transparent investigation. Thus, giving a panoramic view of the matter the Court is not inclined to exercise its powers in favour of the applicants, and thus the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants is hereby rejected.
However, learned counsel for the applicants submit that the purpose of the anticipatory bail would be suffice if the protection for surrender the applicants would not be given.
Ten days time is granted to the applicant to surrender before the court below and apply for bail and the same shall be heard and decided by the court below in accordance with law.
For the period of ten days, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
With the aforesaid observation, the present anticipatory bail application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 8.9.2021 Abhishek Sri.
Digitally signed by RAHUL CHATURVEDI Date: 2021.09.09 11:25:45 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in pending investigation as a matter of right.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Pankaj Sharma And 2 Others
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
