This court refused to grant anticipatory bail immediately due to exceptional grounds existing. Instead, it directed applicants to surrender within 60 days and apply for regular bail from the trial court.
Directed applicants to surrender and apply for bail within 60 days; no coercive action pending such compliance.
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. - 3557 of 2021
Applicant :- Anuj Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Anuj Kumar and Prateek Sharma, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No.0038 of 2021, under Sections-420, 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station- Pilakhuwa, District- Hapur, 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 applicants, that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 60 days from today and apply for bail, their 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 applicants.
However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
It is made clear that the applicants 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 :- 25.2.2021 SS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted at this stage given the complicity of accused and existing legal precedents.
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.Referred¶8
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶8
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anuj Kumar
Prateek Sharma
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
