Dismissed

Mohit Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2022/1739/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of this anticipatory bail application at the admission stage, finding no grounds for bail. It directed the investigating agency to abide by Supreme Court precedents requiring cooperation under Section 41-A CrPC before arresting an accused facing charges punishable up to seven years.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed; applicant directed to cooperate with investigation under Section 41-A CrPC.

Mohit Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1739 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mohit Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chamupati Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶6

This anticipatory bail application has been preferred by the applicant (Mohit Yadav) apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.0446 of 2022, under Section 380 I.P.C., Police Station-Para, District-Lucknow.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.).

¶8

In the present case, the F.I.R. has been lodged under the sections where the punishment is prescribed upto seven years.

¶9

In view of the dictums of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 and in the case in re: Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and others in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5191 of 2021 , in the cases where the punishment prescribed is upto seven years, usually no arrest should be made unless the accused person does not co-operate with the investigation.

¶10

So as to entertain the application for anticipatory bail, the strong apprehension of arrest should be there in a issue where the allegations so levelled do not, prima-facie, corroborate with the material available on record.

¶11

If the sections under which the F.I.R. has been lodged are having punishment upto seven years, it is needless to say that the Investigating Agency/ Officer should follow the dictums of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Arnesh Kumar (supra) and Satender Kumar Antil (supra) as well as the provisions of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. If the accused applicant co-operates with the investigation in view of the notice issued under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., the arrest in such cases is not required.

¶12

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid settled proposition of law, I do not find any good ground to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant.

¶13

Therefore, the anticipatory bail application is disposed of finally at the admission stage giving liberty to the present applicant to appear before the Investigating Agency/ Officer to co-operate with the investigation and if the present applicant properly co-operates with the investigation, the Investigating Agency/ Officer shall abide by the directions of Hon'ble Apex Court issued in re: Arnesh Kumar (supra) and Satender Kumar Antil (supra) as the directions of Apex Court is law of land and no one can flout the same and the directions shall be abide in its letter and spirit.

¶14

Order Date :- 18.10.2022 [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Suresh/

¶15

Digitally signed by SURESH CHANDRA Date: 2022.10.19 15:41:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohit Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home U.P.

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

Madan Gopal and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Ram Kripal Vs State of U.P.

Prakash Chandra Vidyarthi Vs C.B.I. Thru. S.P. and Head of Branch Anti-Corruption Branch Lko Branch and Another

Shankar Nath Dubey @ Shankar Nath Devide Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Civil Secrett. Lucknow and Another

Gurubaksh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. / Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Sarita Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another