Disposed

Sanjeev Kumar @ Tinku v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2021ABAIL/2696/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. due to lack of exceptional grounds, but granted a stay against coercive action if the applicant surrenders within 90 days to pursue a regular bail application in accordance with specific precedents.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action for 90 days if applicant surrenders within that period to apply for bail as per specified precedents; otherwise coercive action to be taken.

Sanjeev Kumar @ Tinku Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2696 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar @ Tinku Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Mohan 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

Order on Criminal Misc. Exemption Application

¶7

This exemption application is allowed.

¶8

Order on Criminal Misc. Bail Application

¶9

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Sanjeev Kumar @ Tinku, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.148 of 2020, under Sections-419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Police Station- Bhogaon, District- Mainpuri, during pendency of trial.

¶10

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.

¶11

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 .

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 10.2.2021 SS

Sanjeev Kumar @ Tinku v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar @ Tinku v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Mohd. Shareef Vs State of U.P.

Malay Agrawal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Priyanshu @ Rajit Thakur Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Riyasat and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sunita Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another