Dismissed

Dinesh Kumar Prajapati v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC25 Jun 2021ABAIL/12391/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application, the applicant sought protection for those named in a complaint involving alleged assault and use of force. The Single Judge noted specific grievance regarding the presence of the applicant and involvement in the assembly. The court observed that the FIR and related materials support the allegation of the applicant's presence in the unlawful assembly associate

What the court decided

AI extract

Dinesh Kumar Prajapati Vs State of Up and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12391 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Prajapati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State through video conference.

¶6

This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Dinesh Kumar Prajapati , seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.91 of 2021, under Sections -147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station -Basgaon, District -Gorakhpur , during pendency of trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the applicant has been named in the FIR, he has no criminal history and that he was not involved in the occurrence. Besides being named as one of the 26 accused persons, no role has been assigned to him of having caused any injury. Referring to the injury report, it has been submitted that the firearm injury is alleged to have been caused by other co-accused named by the injured witness. Thus, there is no material to proceed against the applicant.

¶8

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, at present, there is an allegation of commission of offence under Section 307 IPC. Besides the firearm injury, there are other injuries noted in the medical report. There is nothing to doubt the FIR allegation as to the presence of the applicant or his involvement in the unlawful assembly that is stated to have caused the assault.

¶10

All other matters may remain to be examined at other stages including the stage of regular bail application. Insofar as there is nothing to doubt incident as alleged, no good ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail at this stage.

¶11

Accordingly, the present application is rejected , leaving it open to the applicant to apply for regular bail which application, when filed may be considered on it's own merit, without being prejudiced by any observations made in this order.

¶12

Order Date :- 25.6.2021 S.Chaurasia

¶13

Digitally signed by Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh Date: 2021.06.25 17:38:01 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dinesh Kumar Prajapati v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dinesh Kumar Prajapati v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Sandeep Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Kumar Pandey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhyan Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mateen and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Raksha Tilak Sharmab and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another