Dismissed

Rahul Nagar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2021ABAIL/4947/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge refused anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., finding no cause to grant indulgence after hearing learned counsel. The court directed that if the applicant approaches the trial court with a bail application subsequently, it must be decided in strict adherence to Section 41 Cr.P.C. and cited precedents.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed; future bail application to be decided in trial court per Section 41 Cr.P.C.

Rahul Nagar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4947 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Nagar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Sharma,Lavesh Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,R.C. Maurya

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

Heard over anticipatory bail application, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., moved by the applicant- Rahul Nagar, in Case Crime No. 265 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 377, 354(Kha), 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Fatehpur Sikri, District-Agra.

¶6

Sri Lavesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accusedapplicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number; application for anticipatory bail was moved before court of session where it was rejected; there is every likelihood of arrest by the police; hence this application for anticipatory bail with above prayer.

¶7

Learned AGA and Sri R.C. Maurya, counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed with this contention that he was granted protection of Section 41 Cr.P.C.; there is no likelihood of arrest by the police, where offences, maximum punishable upto seven years, are to be dealt with as per Section 41 Cr.P.C., as well as law laid down 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.

¶8

Having heard and gone through material placed on record as well as considering all those facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98 , no indulgence for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

¶9

However, in case, applicant approaches before the trial court with bail application, same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law cited as above as well as in strict adherence of provision of Section 41 Cr.P.C.

¶10

With the aforesaid observations, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 17.12.2021 Dhirendra/

Rahul Nagar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Nagar 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

Asharam Vs State of U.P and Another

Nafees Ahamad Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akash Giri and Another Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep @ Kaley Vs State of U.P.

Kamal Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others