An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was rejected. The court found no exceptional grounds to exercise discretionary jurisdiction despite counsel citing a Supreme Court judgment.
The application for anticipatory bail is 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. - 1727 of 2022
Applicant :- Firoz Pasa Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Srivastava,Sita Ram Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satyam Narayan
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Srikant Verma, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Ramanand Gupta, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Satyam narayan, learned counsel for first informant.
This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant in connection with Case Crime No.547 of 2020, under Sections 420 I.P.C. and 66 I.T. (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police StationLisarigate, District- Meerut.
Perused the record.
At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant contends that charge-sheet has already been submitted against applicant on 21.5.2021.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material brought on record as well as complicity of accused and also judgment of the Apex Court in the case of 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, the present application for anticipatory bail is rejected.
Order Date :- 11.3.2022 Arshad
Digitally signed by ARSHAD MAHMOOD Date: 2022.03.11 17:55:18 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. to the applicant.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198Referred¶9
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Firoz Pasa
Rajeev Misra
Arshad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Rajeev Misra and Arshad
Parties & counsel
