Application for anticipatory bail rejected. Court held serious injuries (fractured head, broken teeth) disclosed by FIR negate sufficient grounds for bail despite applicants' claim of false implication.
Anticipatory bail application 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. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6488 of 2021 Applicant :- Mahendra Singh And 5 Other Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Other Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Singh,Vishal Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicants namely Mahendra Singh, Rekha Devi, Rinku, Saras, Jitendra and Rahul with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0332 of 2020, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 325, 326, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bela, District Auraiya.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the case has been lodged by giving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The incident is not proved and no injury was caused to the informant. The police is regularly trying to arrest the applicants and, therefore, they have not been able to approach to the court below. They have been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant Mahendra Singh was not present on that date and he was far away from the place of occurrence where he could not reach at the relevant time. Submission is that in view of the threat of arrest, prima-facie case for anticipatory bail is made out. 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.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and has submitted that serious injuries have been caused to the injured by the applicants in view of the first information report. the medical report is on record which shows that fracture in head has been found and in addition to it, the teeth of the injured has also been broken. The injured has suffered other injuries, therefore, it has been submitted that it is a serious matter in which benefit of anticipatory bail should not be granted.
Considered the submissions of both the sides, the first information report discloses serious things with serious injuries
to the injured. The incident has taken place on 03.10.2020, whereas, the first information report has been lodged on 05.12.2020 but till now, there is nothing on record to show that any serious efforts has been made by the police to arrest the applicants. It shows that there is no real threat of their being arrested.
In view of the injuries sustained by the injured which is serious in nature, I do not find sufficient ground for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail application and the anticipatory bail application is liable to be rejected.
Accordingly the anticipatory bail application is rejected .
Order Date :- 23.7.2021 sailesh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted where FIR discloses serious injuries including fracture in head and broken teeth.
Whether there is a real threat of arrest given the delay in lodging FIR compared to the incident date.
Whether sufficient grounds exist to extend benefit of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving grievous hurt.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mahendra Singh And 5 Others
State Of U.P.
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
