This criminal miscellaneous application seeking anticipatory bail was rejected. The court held that after hearing counsel and examining the record, including the Medico-Legal Report, no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Application for anticipatory bail 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. - 1839 of 2022
Applicant :- Deepak And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hridai Narayan Sharma,Vipin Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinay Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
prosecutrix, which is on record at page 26 of the paper-book and on basis thereof they contend that case of present applicant is distinguishable from co-accused Rinkoo. As such applicants do not deserve any indulgence by this Court.
Order Date :- 18.4.2022 YK
Digitally signed by YASHWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.04.19 10:03:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether exceptional circumstances warrant interference under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the applicants.
Whether the applicants distinguish ably from the co-accused already on bail.
Whether the nature of offence and accusations preclude anticipatory bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of EnforcementReferred¶13
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Deepak
Lokman
State Of U.P.
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
