An anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the Allahabad High Court. The applicant approached the High Court directly without seeking rejection from the trial court first, which was noted against. The court refused bail to ensure a transparent investigation.
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. - 14195 of 2021 Applicant :- Vikram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Applicant :- Brajesh Kumar 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.358 of 2019, under Sections 323, 324, 325, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Kakadev, District-Kanpur Nagar.
From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court straightway without getting his anticipatory bail rejected from the court below.
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 :
" (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. "
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 A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P.Amendment) is not required.
Learned A.G.A has informed the Court that the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and cognizance of the offence has also been taken.
Learned counsel for the applicant has raised number of arguments which could be well appreciated at the appropriate forum.
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 :- 27.9.2021/Sumit S
Digitally signed by RAHUL CHATURVEDI Date: 2021.09.28 11:37:20 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the given circumstances.
Vikram
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
