Court rejected an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by Deepak Yadav. The court held that the severity of the allegations and the need for transparent investigation justified denial of liberty.
Anticipatory bail application was 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. - 13943 of 2021
Applicant :- Deepak Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material on record.
The instant application is being moved by the applicant invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime no.124 of 2021, under Sections 420, 376, 354, 313, 323, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Utraon, District-Prayagraj.
From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court after getting his anticipatory bail rejected by the court below on 08.07.2021.
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 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Vs. State of U.P. , hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned AGA as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P.Amendment) is not required.
Learned A.G.A has submitted that the role attributed to the applicant is severe in nature and he is named is named in the FIR. Keeping in view the nature of allegation, the applicant deserves no liberty.
Taking into account the role attributed to the applicant in commission of offence, the Court feels that in order to have in-depth 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 applicant, and thus the present anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected .
Order Date :- 24.9.2021
Sumit S
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending arrest in connection with offences under Sections 420, 376, 354, 313, 323, 506 IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶8
Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Vs. State of U.P.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Deepak Yadav
State of U.P.
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
