The court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by two accused persons in a criminal case involving Sections 420, 406, and 506 IPC. The court held that no threat of arrest was shown and investigation had not commenced, making the application without force.
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. - 9061 of 2021
Applicant :- Smt. Meenakshi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vidya Shanker Pandey,Usha Kiran Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pawan Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
A supplementary affidavit along with compromise has been filed Ms. Usha Kiran, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA.
The anticipatory bail application is filed by applicants Smt Meenakshi and Chandra Pal Saini in Case Crime No.16 of 2021, under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Moradabad.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that both the parties have entered into amicable settlement outside the court, copy of which has been annexed as S-A--1, therefore, the anticipatory bail may be allowed, so that the applicants may not be arrested.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that the investigation is going on.
Learned counsel for the applicants is also submitted that till now investigation has not been started.
Considering the submission of both the sides that if the parties have entered into the settlement that the same should be placed before the concerned officer-incharge of the investigation. Insofar as the anticipatory bail is concerned, it is not a substitute of regular bail and for the anticipatory bail, it is required that some extraordinary situation should be shown as well as threat of arrest should also be shown. In this case, there is nothing on record to show that there is a threat of arrest of the applicants and investigation has yet been started. On both the accounts, application has no force, therefore is rejected.
It is, however, directed that in case the applicants surrender and give bail application, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously and preferably on the same day in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 5.8.2021
Pr/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be allowed in light of the claimed compromise in anticipation of arrest under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC.
Smt. Meenakshi and Chandra Pal Saini
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
