Dismissed

Isrile and 2 Other v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2021ABAIL/12867/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by three accused persons in a rape case. The applicants approached the High Court directly claiming Section 438 allows bypassing the Session Court. The court held investigation should proceed unhindered and denied bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail rejected; liberty granted to Investigating Officer for thorough investigation.

Isrile and 2 Other Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12867 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Isrile And 2 Other Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shams Uz Zaman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

¶6

By means of the present anticipatory bail application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. the applicants namely Isrile, Jullu @ Zulefkar, and Smt. Rasida, who are apprehending their arrest are seeking their anticipatory bail in connection with Case Crime No.174 of 2021, under Sections-376-D, 506, 313 I.P.C., P.S.-Singhawali Ahir, District Baghpat.

¶7

From the record, it is evident that the applicants haved approached this Court straightaway without their anticipatory bail rejected from the Court of Session.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of the Court to Clause-7 of Section 438 Cr.P.C. (U.P. Act No.4 of 2021), which read thus :

¶9

" (7) If an application under this section has been made by any person to the High Court, no application by the same person shall be entertained by the Court of Session. "

¶10

After interpreting the aforesaid clause it is clear that the Legislature in its wisdom bestowed two avenues open for the accused. If the accused has chosen to come to the High Court straightaway, then he would not be relegated back to exhaust his remedy before the Court of Session first.

¶11

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.

¶12

The F.I.R. in the case was got lodged by the victim herself with the allegation that the applicant Israil on the false promise of marriage enticed her away and outraged her modesty and when the victim became pregnant, she was aborted forcibly. Thereafter, again the applicant allured the victim for marriage and applicant no.3 gave her intoxicated milk and thereafter applicant no.1 and 2 ravished her one by one. The applicants have threatened the victim for life.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail of the applicants by mentioning that there are serious allegations against the applicants and the commission of offence by the applicants cannot be ruled out. Learned A.G.A. further submits that instant case is not the case of false implication.

¶14

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 present anticipatory bail application is hereby REJECTED .

¶15

Order Date :- 14.7.2021 M. Kumar

Isrile and 2 Other v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Isrile and 2 Other 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harendra Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Jainul Vs State of U.P.

Shashikant and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Pinki and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Than Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another