Court rejected prima facie grant of anticipatory bail due to high complicity and lack of exceptional grounds but directed grant if applicants appear and surrender within 60 days.
No coercive action to be taken if applicants appear and surrender within 60 days; bail application to be decided per settled law upon such surrender.
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. - 6012 of 2021
Applicant :- Shiv Shankar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Shiv Shankar, Dharmendra, Sanjay, and Sumit , with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No.161 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 504, 323 I.P.C, Police Station- Linepar, DistrictFirozabad, 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 applicants, 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 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 applicants.
However, in case, the applicants do 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 :- 5.3.2021 SS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted without strict conditions due to lack of exceptional grounds and high complicity of accused.
Whether applicants are granted time to appear and surrender before the court of jurisdiction after a conditional order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of EnforcementReferred¶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) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shiv Shankar and 3 Others
State of U.P.
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
