Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by applicants in a 1988 case. The judge held that the matter was old, co-accused were acquitted in 2004, and applicants should approach the trial court for regular bail instead.
Anticipatory bail application is rejected; applicants directed to seek regular bail from the trial court.
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. - 7287 of 2021
Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar @ Pappu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Agnivesh,Jadu Nandan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicants Awadhesh Kumar @ Pappu and Vijay Kumar @ Sappu in Case Crime No.204 of 1988, under sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 323, 504, 307 I.P.C., P.S. Kamalganj, District Farrukhabad.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that although the accused applicants are prepared to faced trial but considering the fact that the co-accused persons have been acquitted after trial by the judgment of the trial court in S.T. No.114 of 2004, Case Crime No.204 of 1988 by the judgment dated 28.4.2004. Further submission is that in respect of the applicants, the proceedings was stayed and subsequently because of the death of Sri V.C. Katiyar, counsel for the applicants, their petition was dismissed on 30.9.2019. Thereafter, the applicants are in apprehension of their being arrested in pursuance of the order of this Court, therefore, they may be given the benefit of anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that applicants have no criminal history and applicants are prepared to furnish sureties and bonds, there is no possibility of their either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the evidence.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and has submitted that it is an old matter and because of the absence of the applicants, trial could not take faced. The co-accused persons who had face trial, they were acquitted in the year 2004. It has been further submitted that this application is highly delayed and remedy may be sought before the court below.
Considering the submissions of both the sides, in view of the above facts and finding that it is an old case in which not only charge sheet was submitted but co-accused persons face trial
and long back in the year 2004 they have been acquitted. As such, the applicants should go before the trial court and seek regular bail in the matter. I do not find any reason for anticipatory bail, therefore, the anticipatory bail application is rejected .
Order Date :- 7.9.2021 Mini
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a delayed application where co-accused have already been acquitted after trial?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Awadhesh Kumar @ Pappu and Vijay Kumar @ Sappu
State of U.P.
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
