This judgment rejects an application for anticipatory bail. The court held that the applicant's role in the alleged offence warranted full liberty for the investigating officer to proceed with the investigation without interference.
Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is 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. - 14769 of 2021 Applicant :- Chanchal Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Counsel for Applicant :- Mehdi Abbas,Mahvish Zehra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant today in the Court is taken on record.
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.221 of 2021, under Sections 452, 323, 506 I.P.C., Police StationJahangirabad, District-Bulandshahr.
From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court after getting his anticipatory bail rejected by the court below on 07.07.2021.
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 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 the applicant is named in the FIR. Keeping in view the nature of allegation, the applicant deserves no liberty.
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 applicants, and thus the present anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected .
Order Date :- 26.8.2021 Sumit S
Digitally signed by RAHUL CHATURVEDI Date: 2021.08.27 14:25:51 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant apprehending arrest under Sections 452, 323, 506 IPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chanchal Singh
State Of U.P
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
