Disposed

Swami v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2021ABAIL/2220/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected the plea for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. due to lack of exceptional grounds. However, the applicant was directed to surrender to the trial court within 90 days to seek bail, after which the application would be considered as per precedent. Failure to surrender would invite coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail denied; direction to surrender before trial court within 90 days to seek regular bail.

Swami Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2220 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Swami Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Niklank Kumar Jain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Swami, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.504 of 2020, under Sections-420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police StationTundla, District- Firozabad, during pendency of trial.

¶7

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.

¶8

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed, on the request of counsel for the applicant, 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 reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P .

¶9

Till then no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶10

However, in case, the applicant does not appears before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶11

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.

¶12

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of .

¶13

Order Date :- 4.2.2021 SS

Swami v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swami v. State of U.P.

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

Vijay Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P and 2 Others

Maya Devi Vs State of U.P.

Rampyare Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Amit Pathak Vs State of U.P.

Smt Anita Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.