Dismissed

Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2021ABAIL/14723/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by Anil Kumar Gupta in a case involving ivory smuggling under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. It held that mere absence from the spot and lack of recovery are insufficient for anticipatory bail, requiring proof of a threat of arrest. Regular bail consideration is directed if the applicant surrenders.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail rejected. Direction to consider bail expeditiously if the applicant surrenders.

Anil Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 14723 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant Anil Kumar Gupta in Case Crime No. 68 of 2021, under sections 9, 44, 48A, 49, 49(B) (i), 50, 51(I), 57 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, P.S. Karma, District Sonebhadra.

¶7

The FIR version is that on the date of incident three accused persons were caught who were indulged in smuggling of ivory and they disclosed the name of the applicant and said that the applicant was also involved in the smuggling and because of some work, he was not accompanying the accused persons. It was agreed between all of them that after sale of two ivory, they will distribute the amount in proportion.

¶8

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further submitted that nothing has been recovered from the applicant nor he has been arrested on spot, therefore, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history and applicant is prepared to furnish sureties and bonds, there is no possibility of her either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the evidence.

¶9

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and has submitted that the applicant and other co-accused persons are smugglers of ivory and others valuable things .

¶10

Considered the submissions of both the sides. The case relates with smuggling of ivory. The fact that nothing was recovered from the applicant and he was not present on spot when the other three accused persons were arrested may be a good ground for regular bail but for anticipatory bail something more is required from the side of the applicant. The applicant was required to show that there was some extraordinary reason for giving this anticipatory bail application. There must also be a

¶11

threat of arrest of the accused. The FIR has been lodged on 21.06.2021, nothing on record to show that the police has made any efforts for the arrest of the applicant. As such on both the grounds, the application for anticipatory bail fails, therefore, the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant is rejected.

¶12

A direction is, however, given to the court below that in case, applicant surrenders and gives bail application, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶13

Order Date :- 17.9.2021 Mini

Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Gupta 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

Ishvaar Sahay Nai and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Murli @ Ramesh Vs State of U.P.

Abhinav Dixit and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hasim Vs State of U.P.

Guljar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brijendra Vs State of U.P.