Dismissed

Rashmi Rawat (Advocate) v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Nov 2022ABAIL/18892/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The counsel withdrew the application seeking liberty to file a regular bail application guided by Satender Kumar Antil guidelines. The court denied coercive action for four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail dismissed; liberty to file regular bail granted with direction to surrender within four weeks; no coercive action pending surrender.

Rashmi Rawat (Advocate) Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 18892 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rashmi Rawat (Advocate) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Namit Kumar Sharma,Virendra Jaiswal

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Virendra Jaiswal, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for State and also perused the material available on record.

¶6

The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to FIR/Case Crime No. 445 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 306, 507, 120B I.P.C., P.S.- Sikandra, District- Agra.

¶7

After arguing for some time, applicant's counsel submits that the present application for anticipatory bail may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a regular bail application which may be decided keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another , reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 825 .

¶8

Sri Virendra Jaiswal, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. have no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

In view of the above, considering the aforesaid alternative prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that the applicant shall surrender before the concerned court below within a period of four weeks from today and in case, a regular bail application is filed, the same be decided in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) .

¶10

For the period of four weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the concerned court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant, in the above case.

¶11

With the above observations and directions, this application is disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 23.11.2022 Siddhant

¶13

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SAHU Date: 2022.11.24 10:11:36 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rashmi Rawat (Advocate) v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashmi Rawat (Advocate) v. State of U.P.

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

Imran Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devmati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Usman Vs State of U.P.

Nand Lal Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Mohit @ Anuj and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sakib Vs State of U.P.