The court denied anticipatory bail, observing no exceptional grounds based on cited precedents. However, the applicant was directed to surrender within 90 days and apply for regular bail, failing which coercive action would be taken.
Direction to surrender within 90 days and apply for bail; coercive action threatened if not complied.
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. - 2934 of 2021
Applicant :- Vineet Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Joshi 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, Vineet Kumar with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 347 of 2019, under Section 420 IPC, Police Station- Hasanpur, District- Amroha (Jyotiba Phule Nagar) 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, 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 .
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 :- 9.2.2021 Ruchi Agrahari
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC to grant anticipatory bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of EnforcementReferred¶7
AIR 2019 SC 4198 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶8
2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.PRelied on¶8
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vineet Kumar
State of U.P.
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
