The Court rejected an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. because the applicants failed to explicitly state their apprehension of arrest, a mandatory statutory requirement, despite the application being pending for over five months without any arrest.
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. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13999 of 2021
Applicant :- Pushpendra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Harish Chandra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri Harish Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants on the prayer for anticipatory bail; Sri Brijendra Pratap Mishra, learned AGA for the State-respondent and perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants, namely, Pushpendra and Bhawana with a prayer to release them on anticipatory bail in case crime No. 0220 of 2019, under Sections 363/366 IPC, P.S. Marhara, District Etah.
After perusing the entire anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the applicants, it reveals that in the entire application there is no mention of the fact that there is great apprehension in the mind of the applicants that they may be arrested in the present matter, which is mandatory requirement of Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Per contra, learned AGA argued that the present application is pending since the month of July, 2021 and more than five months have already been passed and still applicants have not been arrested by the police. This fact clearly shows that there is no apprehension of immediate arrest of the applicant in the present case.
In view of the above, the present application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. is, hereby, rejected .
Order Date :- 2.12.2021 Ankita
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an anticipatory bail application filed without expressly stating apprehension of arrest is maintainable under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Whether the delay in arrest negates the statutory requirement of apprehension for a Section 438 application.
Pushpendra And Another
State of U.P.
Sameer Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
