The Court rejected an application for anticipatory bail in a cross-case involving mutual injuries at Sikandrarao Police Station, noting the necessity for custodial interrogation.
None; application for anticipatory bail 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. - 13030 of 2021
Applicant :- Smt.Gulshan And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hemendra Pratap Singh,Anshu Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aniruddh Tiwari
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
By means of the present application the applicants, Smt. Gulshan and Shazeb are seeking their anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.186 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 308, 452, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Sikandrarao, District-Hathras.
From the record, it is evident that the applicants have approached this Court after getting their anticipatory bail rejected from the Court of Session vide order dated 27.5.2021.
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.
The allegation made in the F.I.R. is that both the parties have sustained injuries. There is cross case in this matter. At this stage it appears difficult to decide that who is the aggressor. The investigation in the case is going on.
The Court feels that in order to have indepth probe into the matter custodial interrogation is imperative. 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 .
Order Date :- 16.7.2021 M. Kumar
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted where parties have sustained injuries and the investigation is ongoing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P.Referred¶8
Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Gulshan
Shazeb
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
