Dismissed

Ali Raza and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Allahabad HC19 Oct 2022/360/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application was dismissed. The single judge held that for offences attracting punishment up to seven years, arrest is not automatic under Arnesh Kumar principles if the accused cooperates with investigation under Section 41-A Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application is disposed of at the admission stage without granting bail.

Ali Raza and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 360 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ali Raza And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Rai,Ajai Kumar,Ali Akhtar Zaidi,Anurag Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rishad Murtaza

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and Sri Ishan Baghel, learned counsel for the complainant/ opposite party no.2.

¶7

Sri Ishan Baghel, learned Advocate, has filed counter affidavit along with his Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant/ opposite party no.2, the same is taken on record.

¶8

As per learned counsel for the applicants, the present applicants are apprehending their arrest in Case Crime No.619 of 2021, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 342, 457 & 380 IPC, Police Station- Gajipur, District- Lucknow.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the present applicants have been falsely implicated in the case as they have not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the FIR. Learned counsel has given undertaking on behalf of the applicants that the applicants shall cooperate with the investigation as the investigation is going on.

¶10

In the present case, the FIR has been lodged in such sections where the punishment prescribed is upto seven years.

¶11

In view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and others, 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.

¶12

So as to entertain the application for anticipatory bail, strong apprehension of arrest should be there in an issue where the allegations so levelled do not, prima facie, corroborate with the

¶13

material available on record.

¶14

If the sections under which the FIR has been lodged are having punishment upto seven years, it is needless to say that the Investigating Agency/ Officer should follow the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Arnesh Kumar (supra) and Satender Kumar Antil (supra) as well as the provisions of Section 41 & 41-A Cr.P.C. If the accused applicants co-operate with the investigation in view of the notice issued under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., the arrest in such cases is not required. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid settled proposition of law, I do not find any good ground to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicants.

¶15

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

¶16

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶17

Order Date :- 19.10.2022 RBS/-

¶18

Digitally signed by RAM BIR SINGH Date: 2022.10.20 20:26:19 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ali Raza and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ali Raza and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

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

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

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

Safatullah @ Mohd. Safatullah Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Home and Anr.

Shubhanshu Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Pravin Kumar Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home and Another