The High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by Satish Chandra. Finding no exceptional circumstances warranting interference, the court denied relief in connection with multiple IPC offences.
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. - 1989 of 2022
Applicant :- Satish Chandra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Ayub
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Order Date :- 29.3.2022 YK
Digitally signed by YASHWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.03.31 10:28:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether exceptional circumstances exist to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 341, 323, 504, 506, and 120B I.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of EnforcementReferred¶8
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Satish Chandra
State of U.P.
Rajeev Misra
Yashwant Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
