Dismissed

Rampal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Jun 2021ABAIL/5860/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by an 86-year-old accused. The court held that with the charge-sheet already filed and summons issued, no case was made out for exercising discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C., directing the applicant to seek regular bail before the lower court.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. rejected; applicant directed to seek regular bail from lower court.

Rampal Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5860 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rampal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- S.M.Faraz I. Kazmi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri S.M. Faraz I. Kazmi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri G.P. Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶6

This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 373 of 2019, under Sections 325 and 326 IPC, Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur.

¶7

From the perusal of the record, it appears that initially a First Information Report was lodged against the applicant and other persons on 30.04.2019 for the incident to have occured on 28.04.2019 which was registered as Case Crime No. 373 of 2019, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 and 307 IPC.

¶8

It is contended that applicant had already been released on bail in the aforesaid case. After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted by the Police and Sections 325 and 326 IPC have been added. It is next contended that applicant is 86 years old and he is already on regular bail in other sections. Lastly, it is submitted that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the investigation.

¶9

Learned Additional Government Advocate, who has accepted notice of this case on behalf of State of U.P. has opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. It is submitted that charge-sheet has already been submitted and court below has taken cognizance of the matter and summons have been issued. The applicant should appear before the court below and seek regular bail.

¶10

In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as mentioned above, taking into consideration the role assigned to

¶11

the applicant as per prosecution case, gravity and nature of accusation, this Court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is made out in favour of applicant.

¶12

Accordingly, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

¶13

Order Date :- 3.6.2021 V.S.Singh

Rampal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rampal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulsadiq Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bilal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhaji Om and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj Tomar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Upendra Vs State of U.P.

Shoyab @ Sher Mistri @ Suheb Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another