Dismissed

Arvind Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2022ABAIL/19299/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an anticipatory bail application by Arvind Yadav under Section 438 CrPC. The applicant claimed the death was due to depression, not his abetment. The court found the informant's evidence grounded and rejected the claim that the case was rarest of rare.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is declined and the application is dismissed.

Arvind Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 19299 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Arvind Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajeet Kumar Srivastava

¶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. 238 of 2021, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali, District Jaunpur.

¶7

Contention is that it is nothing but suicide committed out of suspicion on account of depression prevailing upon the mind of the deceased. Nothing of the sort in the shape of incitement or abetment was ever extended from the side of the applicant and the applicant never intended that the deceased should commit suicide in this case. The FIR was lodged on mischievous ground in order to grab the property of the applicant and to put him behind the bar.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has claimed that the very piece of testimony on record and the statement of the informant as well as the prosecution witnesses is itself indicative vis a vis the description contained in the first information report that the offence under Section 306 IPC is absolutely made out against the applicant and to claim the anticipatory relief at this stage would be misuse of the process of law for the reason that all the ingredients that are necessary for attracting the provisions of Section 306 IPC are very much described in the F.I.R. itself.

¶9

Considering the submissions and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, obviously the ground urged in support of the interim relief do not carry any force for the reason that the urge made by the informant side is based upon concrete facts as well as law and it cannot be interfered at this stage and this case cannot be treated to be of rarest of rare position where interim relief should be extended to the applicant.

¶10

For the aforesaid reason prayer made in this application by the applicant is

¶11

declined and this anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

¶12

The observation so made in the body of this order shall not prejudice proceeding of the lower court while deciding the case on merit.

¶13

Order Date :- 4.2.2022

¶14

Raj

¶15

Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR Date: 2022.02.09 10:35:13 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arvind Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldeep Chaprana Vs State of U.P.

Azaz Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Awadhesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanju Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jyotishna Katiyar Vs State of U.P. and Another