This single-judge court disposed of an anticipatory bail application rejected by the trial court. No indulgence was made out for granting bail, but future bail applications to the trial court were permitted subject to legal provisions.
None; application dismissed. Applicant directed to approach trial court for bail.
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. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 17160 of 2021
Applicant :- Jogendra @ Johny Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard over anticipatory bail application, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., moved by the applicant- Jogendra @ Johny, in Case Crime No. 124 of 2021, under Sections-60/63 Excise Act and Section 171-H I.P.C., Police Station-Rampur Maniharan, District-Saharanpur.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number; application for anticipatory bail was moved before court of session where it was rejected; there is every likelihood of arrest by the police; hence this application for anticipatory bail with above prayer.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed with this contention that there is no likelihood of arrest by the police, where offences, maximum punishable upto seven years, are to be dealt with as per Section 41 Cr.P.C., as well as law laid down 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.
Having heard and gone through material placed on record as well as considering all those facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98 , no indulgence for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
However, in case, applicant approaches before the trial court with bail application, same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law cited as above as well as in strict adherence of provision of Section 41 Cr.P.C.
With the aforesaid observations, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 10.12.2021 Deepak/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant facing charges under Sections 60/63 Excise Act and Section 171-H IPC.
Whether there is a likelihood of arrest based on the maximum punishment of seven years under the implicated sections.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶7
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶7
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)Referred¶8
Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Jogendra @ Johny
State of U.P.
Ram Krishna Gautam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
