Dismissed

Lokesh Malik v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2021ABAIL/14600/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected an anticipatory bail application by Lokesh Malik regarding案件的 involving assault with weapons and grievous injuries. Despite the nature of the allegations, the court held that in-depth investigation was required and later granted protection against arrest under Section 41(1) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Protection of Section 41(1) Cr.P.C. granted; Investigating Officer allowed full liberty for investigation.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 14600 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Lokesh Malik Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Anand Mohan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

¶6

By means of the present application the applicant, Lokesh Malik is seeking his anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.91 of 2021, under Sections 342, 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Agauta, DistrictBulandshahar.

¶7

From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court after getting her anticipatory bail rejected from the Court of Session vide order dated 06.07.2021.

¶8

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 u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus 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.

¶9

Keeping in view that there is fracture over nose of the injured and keeping in view the allegation made in the FIR that all the four persons were assaulted by lathi, danda and Batt countrymade pistol causing grevious injuries over the person of Lekhraj.

¶10

Taking into account the role attributed to the applicant in commission of offence, the Court feels that in order to have indepth 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 prayer for present anticipatory bail application is hereby REJECTED.

¶11

However considering the entirety of the case and the maximum punishment awarded seven years, then the protection of Section 41(1) Cr.P.C. is available to the applicant. The court or the police, as the case may be, shall act in consonance with the spirit of the same.

¶12

If the applicant has any grievance, he may seek regular bail before the appropriate forum.

¶13

With the aforesaid observation, the instant anticipatory bail application is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 9.8.2021 Abhishek Sri.

¶15

Digitally signed by RAHUL CHATURVEDI Date: 2021.08.10 18:22:06 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lokesh Malik v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokesh Malik 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

Naseem and 3 Other Vs State of U.P. and Another

Annu Mishra @ Anurag Kumar Mishra and 2 Other Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh and 2 Othes Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ishwar Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Kishanveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Dharmendra Vs State of U.P. and Another