In this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court, considering the severity of criminal charges and the need for a transparent investigation involving assault, rejected the plea for anticipatory bail.
None. Application for anticipatory bail is hereby 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. - 14603 of 2021 Applicant :- Mujammil @ Mujammil Husen And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan,Saddam Husain
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amir Khan,Ayub Khan
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A and also perused the record.
The instant application is being moved by the applicants namely Mujammil @ Mujammil Husen and Jhunna invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. that they have every reason to believe that they may be arrested on the accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence in connection with Case Crime no.102 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Rampur Karkhana, District-Deoria.
From the record, it is evident that the applicants have approached this Court after getting their anticipatory bail rejected from the Court of Sessions vide order dated 21.6.2021.
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 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.
According to the F.I.R. all the accused persons named in the F.I.R. including the applicant have assaulted by Farsa, lathidanda and iron rod causing head injuries over the injured persons. Taking into account the severity of allegations and the role attributed to the applicants, this 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 applicants, and thus the present anticipatory bail application is hereby REJECTED.
Order Date :- 27.8.2021/M. Kumar
Digitally signed by RAHUL CHATURVEDI Date: 2021.08.27 14:16:10 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be entertained given the severity of allegations and role attributed to applicants.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mujammil @ Mujammil Husen
Jhunna
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
