The Single Judge held that exceptional grounds for anticipatory bail were not found. However, granting a direction for the applicant to surrender within 60 days to seek regular bail, pending which no coercive action would be taken.
Directed applicant to surrender within 60 days to apply for bail; no coercive action until then.
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. - 6084 of 2021
Applicant :- Wasim Raeen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamalendra Kumar Maurya 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, Wasim Raeen, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.010 of 2021, under Section 3/4 of Public Gambling Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Agra, 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 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 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 :- 5.3.2021 SS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a public gambling case.
Whether the applicant may be granted a directed surrender period for future bail consideration.
Whether coercive action can be taken if the applicant fails to surrender within 60 days.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
AIR 2019 SC 4198Referred¶7
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198 · Who else cites this
2004 (57) ALR 290Referred¶8
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
AIR 2021 SCReferred¶8
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Wasim Raeen
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
