The court rejected an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. connected to offences of outraging modesty and child sexual offences. The judge found no exceptional grounds for granting bail after reviewing counsel arguments and precedent.
Anticipatory bail application 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. - 1923 of 2022
Applicant :- Kundan @ Dhananjay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Prabodh Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. A.P. Dubey, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant in connection with Case Crime No.9 of 2022, under Sections 354 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station- Bansgaon, District- Gorakhpur.
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 :- 25.3.2022 Arshad
Digitally signed by ARSHAD MAHMOOD Date: 2022.03.25 15:53:14 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving Sections 354 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act.
Whether the applicant satisfied the exceptional grounds required for exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of EnforcementReferred¶7
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kundan @ Dhananjay
State Of U.P.
Rajeev Misra
Arshad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
