Court denied anticipatory bail as no exceptional grounds were found, directing applicants to surrender within 60 days and seek regular bail to prevent coercive action.
Anticipatory bail denied; applicants directed to surrender within 60 days for regular bail consideration; no coercive action during this period.
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. - 4233 of 2021
Applicant :- Bholi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Sharan Giri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Upendra Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Upendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Bholi and Lakshman, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 137 of 2020, under Sections- 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(va) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Banda, 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 applicants, it is directed 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 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 applicants.
However, in case, the applicants does 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 :- 3.3.2021 KS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted despite lack of exceptional grounds under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in relation to offences under IPC and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of EnforcementExplained¶7
AIR 2019 SC 4198 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶8
2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶8
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Bholi
Lakshman
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Siddharth
Parties & counsel
