The court did not grant anticipatory bail but directed the applicant to surrender within 90 days for regular bail consideration; failure would invite coercive action.
No bail granted; applicant allowed to surrender within 90 days for bail consideration; no coercive action if he complies.
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. - 1965 of 2021
Applicant :- Udaypratap Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Lal Mishra,Vinay Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Udaypratap Singh, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 877 of 2020, under Sections- 420, 406, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Etah, during pendency of trial.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material brought on record as well as complicity of accused and also judgement of the Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198, this Court does not finds any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and on the request of learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 90 days from today and applies for bail, his 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 in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.
However, in case, the applicant does not appears 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.
Order Date :- 1.2.2021 KS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted on conditions requiring the applicant to surrender within a specific timeframe.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of EnforcementReferred¶7
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶8
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶8
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
Udaypratap Singh
State Of U.P.
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
