The single-judge court dismissed the plea for anticipatory bail as offences were made out, but granted exemption from coercive action if the applicant surrenders within 90 days to apply for regular bail.
Exemption from coercive action granted if applicant surrenders within 90 days to seek regular bail; otherwise coercive action may be taken.
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. - 165 of 2021
Applicant :- Vikas Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Namit Kumar Sharma,Virendra Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Order on the Exemption Application
Application is allowed.
Order on the Anticipatory Bail
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri S.S. Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Sudhir Singh, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 323 of 2020, under Sections- 468,467,420,419 IPC, Police Station- Kadadham, DistrictKaushambi, during pendency of trial.
The applicant is not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail. The offences alleged are prima facie made out from the allegations in the FIR.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed, on the request of counsel for the applicant, 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 reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Till then no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.
However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period,
coercive action shall be taken against him.
It is made clear that the applicant 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.
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 :- 1.2.2021 Atul kr. sri.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant facing charges under the IPC?
Whether directions for surrender within a specific period can be conditioned upon granting bail?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Explained¶11
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Explained¶11
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sudhir Singh
State Of U.P.
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
