The Allahabad High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by Lal Ji Rajak and others apprehending arrest in a kidnapping case. The court noted the applicants bypassed the Sessions Court as required by statute.
The anticipatory bail application was rejected, and the applicants do not receive any liberty.
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. - 14411 of 2021 Applicant :- Lal Ji Rajak And Others N Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Mishra,Dharmendra Kumar Dohare
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material on record.
The instant application is being moved by the applicants invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending their arrest in connection with Case Crime no.0153 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station-Utraon, DistrictPrayagraj.
From the record, it is evident that the applicants have approached this Court straightway without getting their 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 AGA as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P.Amendment) is not required.
Learned A.G.A has submitted that however, the applicants are not named in the FIR but the role attributed to them are serious in nature. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence, the applicants deserves no liberty.
Taking into account the role attributed to the applicants 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 applicants, and thus the present anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected .
Order Date :- 22.9.2021/Sumit S
Digitally signed by RAHUL CHATURVEDI Date: 2021.09.24 11:15:15 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for anticipatory bail should be entertained despite the applicants not approaching the Court below first.
Whether the applicants deserve liberty given the serious role attributed to them in the alleged offence.
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
Lal Ji Rajak And Others
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
