Dismissed

Pankaj Tomar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jun 2021ABAIL/7365/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding charges of assault and obstruction. The Court noted a discrepancy in the applicant's criminal history claims and, considering the filed charge-sheet and prior rejected discharge application, held no case existed for granting bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. rejected.

Pankaj Tomar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7365 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Pankaj Tomar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Shankar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri S.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶6

This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 1817 of 2019, under Sections 332, 353, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad.

¶7

From the perusal of the record, it appears that after investigation charge-sheet was submitted on 25.09.2019 against applicant under Sections 332, 353, 323 and 504 IPC. The court below took cognizance in the said case. A discharge application was filed under Section 245 Cr.P.C. which was rejected on 05.10.2020.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the investigation.

¶9

Learned Additional Government Advocate, who has accepted notice of this case on behalf of State of U.P. has opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. It is submitted that applicant has criminal history of four cases while in para 27 of the affidavit to the application it is stated by the

¶10

applicant that he has no previous criminal history. In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as mentioned above, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicant as per prosecution case, gravity and nature of accusation, as well as charge-sheet has been filed and the court below has taken cognizance of the matter and discharge application moved by applicant has already been rejected, this Court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is made out in favour of applicant.

¶11

Accordingly, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

¶12

Order Date :- 3.6.2021 V.S.Singh

Pankaj Tomar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Tomar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulsadiq Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bilal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhaji Om and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rampal Vs State of U.P.

Upendra Vs State of U.P.

Shoyab @ Sher Mistri @ Suheb Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another