Dismissed

Soni and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2021ABAIL/895/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court considered an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding offences under Sections 379 and 328 IPC. Rejecting the plea for immediate release, the court directed surrender within 90 days to seek regular bail, otherwise coercive action would be initiated.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; applicants directed to surrender within 90 days to apply for bail, subject to coercive action if they fail to appear.

Soni and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 895 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Soni And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Soni and Sapna , with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 226 of 2020, under Sections- 379 and 328 I.P.C., Police Station- Sidhpura, DistrictKasganj, during pendency of trial.

¶7

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material brought on record as well as complicity of accused and also judgement of the Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198, this Court does not finds any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶8

Learned A.G.A has pointed out that the charge sheet has already been submitted.

¶9

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and on the request of learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 90 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as per the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).

¶10

Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶11

However, in case, the applicants does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶12

It is made clear that the applicants will not be granted any further time by this court for surrendering before the court below as directed above.

¶13

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 12.2.2021 Rohit

Soni and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soni and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Jamil Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kalwa Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Wasay Gazi Alias Abdul Wasay Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anand Vs State of U.P.

Sachin and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ramvir Vs State of U.P. and Another