On the application of Sumit and Triloki for anticipatory bail regarding abduction allegations under Section 366 IPC, the court rejected the plea, holding that investigation would be prejudiced as no recovery was made and the offence ingredients were apparent.
Anticipatory bail application rejected.
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. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 18722 of 2021
Applicant :- Sumit And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Bind Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Order Date :- 26.11.2021 Faraz
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the applicants at this preliminary stage of investigation.
Whether the grant of bail would prejudice the investigation given the nature of the offence and lack of recovery.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sumit
Triloki
State of U.P.
Saumitra Dayal Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
