Dismissed

Sachin Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2021ABAIL/13229/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the single judge rejected the plea. The court held that the serious nature of offences involving kidnapping and rape generally precludes anticipatory bail unless extraordinary reasons or immediate threat of arrest are shown, neither of which was demonstrated here.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected; applicant may seek regular bail before the appropriate forum.

Sachin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13229 of 2021 Applicant :- Sachin Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶5

This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant Sachin Kumar in Case Crime No. 0408 of 2020, under sections 366, 342, 376, 323 I.P.C., P.S.- Kotwali Fatehgarh, District - Farrukhabad.

¶6

The first information report version is that from the date of incident when the daughter of the informant who was aged about 17 years and 4 months and she went for school, did not return. The informant came to know that the victim was with Tripurari, Tribhuan and Chandan on Ghatiaghat Bridge. The informant went to them and asked them to return the daughter, whereupon they started abusing and threatened her. They have enticed away his daughter and she fears that her daughter could be killed. The first information report was thereafter registered under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C. During investigation when the victim was recovered, after her statement addition of Section 376, 342, 323 I.P.C. was made.

¶7

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the statement of the victim shows that she herself admitted that she has married with the applicant and they lived together for some period. The applicant has been falsely implicated and the case is fit one in which the benefit of anticipatory bail may be given. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history and applicant is prepared to furnish sureties and bonds, there is no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the evidence.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and has submitted that the grounds which are being raised can be taken in the regular bail application, hence, the anticipatory bail application may be rejected.

¶9

Considered the submissions of both the sides. The accusation against the applicant is of wrongly confinement and rape and

¶10

committing maar-peet with the victim and it has also been alleged that he enticed away the victim in order to forcefully marry her or compel her to marry with some one. The kind of offence which has been lodged against the applicant is an offence of serious nature and the grounds on the basis of which the anticipatory bail has been sought may be a good ground for regular bail but for anticipatory bail something more is required. The applicant has to show that there is some extraordinary reason for giving the application for anticipatory bail and that there is immediate threat of his being arrested. No extraordinary situation has been shown nor in the bail application anywhere it has been alleged that the victim is the married wife of the applicant. The first information report has been lodged on 16.11.2020 and after a lapse of almost 10 months there is nothing on record to show that the police has made any effort to arrest the applicant. Therefore on both counts the anticipatory bail application fails. Hence, I do not find any ground for giving benefit of anticipatory bail, hence the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant is rejected .

¶11

However, the applicant, if so desires, can go for regular bail before the appropriate forum.

¶12

Order Date :- 6.9.2021 sailesh

Sachin Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jahangeer Quraishi and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rashid and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Diwan and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Hansraj Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Mishra @ Amar Babu Vs State of U.P.and Another

Veerendra Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P.and Another