The High Court rejected the application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by Dheeraj Singh and another in a crime involving affray and assault, noting the applicants bypassed the Sessions Judge.
Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 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. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11856 of 2021
Applicant :- Dheeraj Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Bahadur Yadav,Vijai Singh Gahlaut Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Awadhesh Kumar Malviya,Manoj Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A.
The instant application invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C., is being filed by the applicants seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.51 of 2021 under sections 147, 148, 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station-Narahi, District-Ballia.
From the record, it is evident that the applicants have approached this Court straight way without availing the alternate remedy before the learned Sessions Judge. However, facts and circumstances narrated in the affidavit pursuaded me to hear the instant anticipatory bail.
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.
I have keenly perused the allegation of the FIR as well as injury report. Specific role has been attributed to the applicants that they have assaulted by lathi in which one injured has sustained injury over his vital organ.
Under the circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary power in favour of the applicants.
Accordingly, the present application stands rejected.
However, this observation made while rejecting the present application, shall not come in the way while deciding the regular bail application of the applicants.
Order Date :- 15.7.2021 Sumit S
Digitally signed by Justice Rahul Chaturvedi Date: 2021.07.16 11:18:14 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable when applicants approached the High Court without availing the remedy before the Sessions Judge.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dheeraj Singh
State of U.P.
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
