Single judge court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the applicants, finding no exceptional grounds after hearing counsel and perusing the material and relevant Supreme Court judgment.
Anticipatory bail application rejected.
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. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 15730 of 2021
Applicant :- Rahul Pandey And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay,Ghanshyam Das Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kumar Beenu Singh
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Durgesh Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State.
This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicants Rahul Pandey and Guddu @ Rupeshwar Nath Pandey in connection with Case Crime No. 322 of 2021, under section 364 IPC, P.S. Colonelganj, District Prayagraj.
Perused the record.
Having heard learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material brought record as well as complicity of the accused and also judgement of Apex Court in P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019, SC 4198, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr. P. C.
Accordingly, present application for anticipatory bail is rejected.
Order Date :- 16.3.2022 HSM
Digitally signed by HARI SHANKER MISHRA Date: 2022.03.16 14:27:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given the complicity of the accused and Supreme Court precedents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019, SC 4198Referred¶8
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rahul Pandey
Guddu @ Rupeshwar Nath Pandey
State of U.P.
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
