The High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. during the pendency of investigation after a charge-sheet had been submitted, holding no case for discretionary intervention.
The application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
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. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5904 of 2021
Applicant :- Arun Kumar Yadav And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shiva Priya Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Shiv Priya Prasad, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicants seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 380 of 2018, under Sections 147/148/452/504/506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Jaunpur, during the pendency of the investigation.
From perusal of the record it reveals that the FIR was lodged against the applicants in the year 2018 bearing Case Crime No. 380 of 2018 under Sections 147/148/452/504/506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Jaunpur. It further transpires from paragraph 22 of the affidavit to the bail application that chargesheet has already been submitted by the police on 18.09.2020 in the aforesaid case and court below had taken cognizance in the matter.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants are innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that applicants have apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate with the investigation.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicants by contending that once the charge-sheet has been submitted by the police and investigation is over, the bail application is not maintainable. Moreover, learned AGA has submitted that the applicants have approached this Court directly without exhausting their remedy of approaching Sessions Court first and, as such, present anticipatory bail application is liable to be rejected by this Court.
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 the applicants as per prosecution case, gravity and nature of accusation, as well as the fact that investigation is over and charge-sheet has been submitted by the police in the year 2020 itself, 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.
Accordingly, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
Order Date :- 4.6.2021 Shekhar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable after the submission of a charge-sheet but during the pendency of the investigation.
Whether the Applicants approached the lower Court first before approaching this Court directly.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Arun Kumar Yadav And 4 Others
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
