Dismissed

Maya and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2021ABAIL/6158/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail App. No. 6158 of 2021 rejected the application as the applicants, involved in a family dispute, were not under any real threat of arrest and no police action had been taken in seven months. The order is concluded with 'Order Date :- 14.7.2021 sailesh', likely indicating the judgment date and judge's initials.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected. No bail granted.

Maya and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6158 of 2021 Applicant :- Maya And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the anticipatory bail application.

¶5

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicants namely Maya, Gopal, Manoj, Sudheer, Sanju and Sarita with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 1567 of 2020, under Sections 506, 504, 323, 313, 147 I.P.C., Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that it is a case of family and matrimonial dispute and in order to pressurize the applicants, a false first information report has been lodged by the informant with the allegation of maar-peet to the effect of causing miscarriage. Submission is that there is threat of arrest of the applicants and looking to the nature of offence, the applicants are entitled for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicants are enlarged on anticipatory bail, the applicants shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicants and has submitted that the incident appears to have taken place in December, 2020 and till now after the expiry of about seven months, none of the applicants has been arrested by the police. It shows that there is no

¶8

apprehension or threat for the arrest of the applicants. As per the contents of the anticipatory bail application both the parties are living in the same house and till date, the local police is not interested in making arrest to the applicants. Submission is that because prima-facie the threat of arrest to the applicants is not made out, there is no ground for allowing the anticipatory bail of the applicants.

¶9

Having regard to the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties, I find that nothing has been shown in the affidavit that in the last seven months, any steps has been taken towards the arrest of the applicants. It is why from the last seven months, the accused-applicants have not been arrested. Both the parties are family members and the present dispute is a family dispute and there is nothing on record to show that there is any threat of arrest to the applicants. Hence, I do not find any force in the present anticipatory bail application.

¶10

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 14.7.2021 sailesh

Maya and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maya and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Sharib Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Kumar Baranwal Vs State of Up and Another

Suraj Vs State of U.P.

Shafiq Vs State of U.P.

Shobha Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Sumit and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another