Dismissed

Pramod v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Aug 2021ABAIL/7484/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Rahul Chaturvedi rejected the criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that the applicant's grievances regarding proceedings and evidence must be addressed at the appropriate forum and not in this bail application.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected; applicant advised to invoke proper remedy for redressal of grievance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7484 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Pramod Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shekhar Gangal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The instant application is being moved by the applicant invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime no.218 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 352, 354B I.P.C., Police Station-Khair, District-Aligarh.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of the Court to Clause-7 of Section 438 Cr.P.C. (U.P. Act No.4 of 2021), which read thus :

¶8

" (7) If an application under this section has been made by any person to the High Court, no application by the same person shall be entertained by the Court of Session. "

¶9

Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Vs. State of U.P. , hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P.Amendment) is not required.

¶10

Aggrieved by the order dated 28.01.2021 whereby the court has taken cognizance against the present applicant under sections 323, 504, 506, 352 and 354(B) IPC. It is next contended that on the earlier occasion, the same court has taken cognizance on 20.08.2020 under sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC. The next contention is that the there is no fresh material or order passed by the court concerned for having further investigation and the entire exercise is vitiated in the eye of law.

¶11

The Court is of the considered opinion that all these aspects of the issue could be well addressed at the appropriate Forum and not in the present anticipatory bail application.

¶12

Thus, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected .

¶13

The applicant, if so advised, may invoke the proper remedy for redressal of his grievance.

¶14

Order Date :- 12.8.2021 Sumit S

Pramod v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Monu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shamsher Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Santosh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Beena and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naseem and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Other