Dismissed

Vijay v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2021ABAIL/16193/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Chamber; Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application filed by Vijay under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for apprehension of arrest under various IPC sections. The court noted the applicant approached High Court without prior rejection by the lower court, violating Clause 7. After hearing, the court rejected the application to allow full liberty to the investigating officer for inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected; no liberty granted to the applicant.

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

¶1

In Chamber Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 16193 of 2021 Applicant :- Vijay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material on record.

¶4

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.48 of 2020, under Sections 458, 380, 147, 148, 149, 452, 354, 323, 506, 420 I.P.C., Police Station-Hathras Junction, District-Hathras.

¶5

From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court straightway without getting his anticipatory bail rejected from the court below.

¶6

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 2021), which read thus :

¶7

" (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. "

¶8

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 A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P.Amendment) is not required.

¶9

Learned A.G.A has submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR along with four co-accused persons and keeping in view the nature of allegation, the applicant deserves no liberty.

¶10

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.

¶11

Thus, giving a panoramic view of the matter, the Court is not inclined to exercise its powers in favour of the applicant, and thus the present anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected .

¶12

Order Date :- 20.9.2021

¶13

Digitally signed by RAHUL Sumit S CHATURVEDI Date: 2021.09.21 11:16:54 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijay v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay 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

Subhash Chandra Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shamsahad Muhammad @ Muhammad Shamasad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jai Prakash Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Prakash Vs State of U.P

Ganga Saran and another Vs State of u.p. and another

Awadh Raj Singh Vs State of U.P.