Dismissed

Sumer Kaushik and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Oct 2021ABAIL/15013/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed directly under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that while the applicant bypassed the Session Court, the gravity of allegations and the need for a thorough investigation justified rejection of bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected; liberty granted to investigating officer.

Sumer Kaushik and Another 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. - 15013 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sumer Kaushik And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Randhir Singh,Uday Bhan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

¶6

By means of the present anticipatory bail application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. the applicants namely Sumer Kaushik and Vipin Verma, who are apprehending their arrest are seeking their anticipatory bail in connection with Case Crime No.45 of 2021, under Sections-420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dilari, District Moradabad.

¶7

From the record, it is evident that the applicants have approached this Court straightaway without their anticipatory bail rejected from the Court of Session.

¶8

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 2019), which read thus :

¶9

" (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. "

¶10

After interpreting the aforesaid clause it is clear that the Legislature in its wisdom bestowed two avenues open for the accused. If the accused has chosen to come to the High Court straightaway, then he would not be relegated back to exhaust his remedy before the Court of Session first.

¶11

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.

¶12

Taking into account the gravity of allegations and the role of applicant, 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 applicants, and thus the present anticipatory bail application is hereby REJECTED.

¶13

Order Date :- 5.10.2021 M. Kumar

Sumer Kaushik and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumer Kaushik and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shanti Lal Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Kulshreshtha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajan Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ankit Nain and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Priyanka Agrawal Vs State of U.P.