In an anticipation bail application, the Court found no exceptional grounds to exercise discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It directed surrender within 60 days for bail consideration; otherwise, coercive action would follow.
Direction to surrender within 60 days for bail consideration; failure invites coercive action.
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. - 5649 of 2021 Applicant :- Harivansh Yadav Pahalwan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bheshaj Puri 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, Harivansh Yadav Pahalwan, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 356 of 2018, under Sections- 3/7 of E.C. Act and Section 420 IPC, Police Station- Dataganj, District- Budaun, 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 60 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 260 as well asjudgement 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 :- 4.3.2021 Rohit
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail during pendency of trial under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of EnforcementReferred¶6
AIR 2019 SC 4198 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶7
2004 (57) ALR 260
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶7
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Harivansh Yadav Pahalwan
State of U.P.
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
