Disposed¶11

Manavvar Ali v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2022ABAIL/181/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail S.438 Cr.P.C. disposed, not granted; case crime no.42/2021, Ss.452, 354, 504, 506 IPC and S.7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Parikshitgarh, District Meerut; victim's S.164 Cr.P.C. statement silent on applicant's role; parity claim with co-accused Ashraf and Salman (interim relief); liberty to seek regular bail; single judge Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.; order dated 2.2.2022.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail not granted; liberty to move a regular bail application before the court below, to be considered and disposed of expeditiously. ¶11

Manavvar Ali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 181 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Manavvar Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Gyan Chandra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This bail anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in case crime no.42 of 2021, under Sections 452, 354, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act, Police Station- Parikshitgarh, District Meerut.

¶7

The point pressed before this Court is that in this case in so far as the involvement of the applicant is concerned, the same has got nothing to do with the offence in question reason being that the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is indicative of fact that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. In fact on the similar ground two other coaccused- Ashraf and Salman- have already been granted interim relief by the lower court concerned and per chance the applicant case was treated differently for no worthy reason.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the anticipatory bail of the applicant and submitted that there are material sufficient exists which prove involvement of the applicant in the commission of the crime.

¶9

Considered the rival submission and also the entirety of this case in view of fact that the role of the applicant has not been whispered in the statement of victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C. as has been claimed by the applicant and that may be a good ground for seeking regular bail. While considering the application for interim relief it is the prime consideration of the court concerned that the apprehension should be unfounded and that being the case when the court can interfere but here in this case sufficient material exists that alleges something

¶10

against the applicant. However, applicant is free to agitate his claim at the stage of regular bail before the appropriate court. Therefore, the applicant, if so desires may move his regular bail application before the court below and in case, any such application for regular bail is moved, then that shall be considered and disposed off by the court below expeditiously.

¶11

In view of above, this anticipatory bail application is disposed off. The observation so made in the body of this order shall not prejudice proceeding of the lower court while deciding the case on merit.

¶12

Order Date :- 2.2.2022

¶13

Raj

Manavvar Ali v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manavvar Ali v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Safwan Vs State of U.P.

Fareed and another Vs State of u. p. through principal secretary home and another

Sonu @ Azeem and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Kumar Vishwakarma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Chand and Another Vs State of u. p. through principal secretary home and another

Sunil Nersinghai and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another