Hon'ble Siddharth, J. denied anticipatory bail for applicants Nasruddin Ansari and others, finding no exceptional grounds. The court directed surrender within 90 days to enable bail consideration; otherwise, coercive action will be taken.
No anticipatory bail granted; surrender within 90 days directed for future bail consideration.
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. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1518 of 2021
Applicant :- Nasruddin Ansari And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Nasruddin Ansari, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Faruk Ansari, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 239 of 2020, under Sections- 420, 406 I.P.C. and Section 66 of I.T. Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Basti, during pendency of trial.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material brought on record as well as complicity of accused and also judgement of the Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198, this Court does not finds any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and on the request of learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 90 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as per the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
However, in case, the applicants does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
It is made clear that the applicants will not be granted any further time by this court for surrendering before the court below as directed above.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 22.2.2021 KS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether exceptional grounds exist to grant anticipatory bail in the instant case?
Whether the applicants can be directed to surrender and apply for bail within a specific period?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of EnforcementReferred¶7
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶8
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶8
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
Nasruddin Ansari, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Faruk Ansari
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH,J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
