Dismissed

Ashish Kumar and Another v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2021ABAIL/16655/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a straightaway anticipatory bail application. Upholding the direct approach to the High Court under Section 438(7) Cr.P.C. (U.P.), the court rejected the plea as it would hinder the investigating officer's liberty to probe the case transparently.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected to grant Investigating Officer fullest liberty for transparent investigation.

Ashish Kumar 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. - 16655 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ashish Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Yadav 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 Ashish Kumar and Pankaj, who are apprehending their arrest are seeking their anticipatory bail in connection with Case Crime No.36 of 2021, under Sections380, 457 IPC, P.S. -Amritpur, District -Farrukhabad.

¶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

Keeping in view the allegation made against the applicants, the

¶13

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.

¶14

Order Date :- 24.9.2021 M. Kumar

¶15

Digitally signed by RAHUL CHATURVEDI Date: 2021.09.27 11:47:30 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashish Kumar and Another v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Kumar 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

Durga Prasad Dubey and Another Vs State of U.P.

Kamla Devi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.

Qayyum Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Vs State of U.P.and Another

Babli @ Havaldar Vs State of Up and Another