Anticipatory bail application dismissed because admission of guilt makes the argument relevant only for regular bail. Applicant directed to regular bail stage. No prejudice to lower court proceedings.
Application disposed off; applicant directed to agitate claim at regular bail stage.
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. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6515 of 2021
Applicant :- Banshidhar Pandey And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants seeking anticipatory bail in case crime no. 0016 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 354, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police StationMahila Thana, District Mirzapur.
Considering the submissions and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, no doubt it is an admitted fact from the the perusal of the FIR that applicant was involved in the offence in the question. Therefore, the argument advanced here are argument to be advanced at the stage of regular bail and cannot form the basis of anticipatory bail.
The applicant is free to agitate his claim at the stage of regular bail before the appropriate court.
In view of above, this anticipatory bail application is disposed off.
The observation so made in the body of this order shall not prejudice proceeding of the lower court while deciding the case on merit.
Order Date :- 9.9.2021
Raj
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the admitted involvement in the offence bars the grant of anticipatory bail at this stage.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Banshidhar Pandey and Another
Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
