Dismissed

Saurabh Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2021ABAIL/1886/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court rejected the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Lt. The Court observed that as the applicant was already a proclaimed offender, process was issued by the Court, and thus apprehension of arrest was absent, there was no case for granting anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected as apprehension of arrest is absent due to existing court process.

Saurabh Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1886 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Saurabh Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Nitesh Kumar Srivastava,Gaurav Srivastava,Karunesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vatsala

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

Heard over anticipatory bail application, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., moved by the applicant- Saurabh Srivastava, in Case Crime No. 299 of 2018, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. & 66 I.T. Act, Police Station- Cantt., District- Gorakhpur.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accusedapplicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number; applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation; there is every likelihood of arrest by the police; hence anticipatory bail application was moved before court concerned, but it was rejected, hence this application for anticipatory bail with above prayer.

¶7

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed with this contention that in this very case crime number, chargesheet has been filed for offences punishable under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., wherein cognizance has been taken and process for appearance has been issued; applicant is proclaimed offender; non-bailable warrant is in existence against him, even they have preferred as writ as well as a proceeding before this Court by way of application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., but have not given any relief; this application is not maintainable for grant of anticipatory bail in view of law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Prem Shanker Prasad vs. State of Bihar and another (2021) 0 Supreme (SC) 617.

¶8

Having heard and gone through material placed on record, it is apparent that chargesheet has been filed and cogniznce has been taken and thenafter issuance of process is there, wherein, non bailable warrant is said to be issued, now apprehension of arrest by police is not there, rather, a process issued by Court is to be acted upon and applicant is free to move before Court in compliance of the process.

¶9

Considering all those facts and circumstances of the case and

¶10

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 as well as in the case of Prem Shankar Vs. State of Bihar and others(supra), no indulgence for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

¶11

Accordingly, anticipatory bail application is rejected . Order Date :- 7.12.2021 Kamarjahan

Saurabh Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Sher Bahadur Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Anupam Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamal Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Geeta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sabir and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Yadav @ Raju Vs State of U.P.