Disposed

Suneel Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2021ABAIL/9093/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application, the applicant claimed innocence and false implication in a case alleged to violate the Pre Conception Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994. The learned single Judge did not grant anticipatory bail, observing that documents on record substantiated allegations and no good ground existed for interference.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for anticipatory bail was not granted. The applicant was allowed three weeks to move an application for regular bail in the trial court, which would be disposed of on the same day.

Suneel Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9093 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Suneel Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No.4845 of 2019, Dr. C.L. Kannaujiya Vs. Suneel Kumar, under Section 23 Pre Conception Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Basti during the pendency of trial.

¶7

Urge has been made on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has no concern with the offence alleged against him. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. No offence has been committed by the applicant. In case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, there is no possibility of misusing the liberty of anticipatory bail.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶9

After considering the rival submissions raised by both the parties and the averments contained in this anticipatory bail application, obviously the documents placed on record carry substantive allegations, which have been backed up by the sufficient material against the applicant. No good ground is made out for interference.

¶10

However, the relief sought by the applicant can be well obtained by moving appropriate regular bail application before the court concerned. Therefore, it is provided that in case the applicant appears before the court concerned within three weeks from today and moves appropriate application for bail, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the court concerned on the same day.

¶11

With the aforesaid observation, this application stands disposed of.

¶12

The observation made herein above will have no bearing upon the merit of the case.

¶13

Order Date :- 2.8.2021 rkg

Suneel Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suneel Kumar 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

Pradeep Verma Vs State of Up and Another

Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Indresh Rai Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P.and Another

Farhat Jahan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajeev Ranjan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another