This order rejects an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court found no exceptional grounds to exercise discretionary jurisdiction, considering the filed charges and a reference to Supreme Court precedent.
Request for anticipatory bail rejected and application dismissed.
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. - 2166 of 2022
Applicant :- Mohammad Haseen Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwini Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State.
This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant in connection with Case Crime No.113 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 376 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Meerut.
Perused the record.
At the very outset, learned A.G.A. submits that charge has been submitted against applicant on 20.3.2016.
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 :- 23.3.2022 Arshad
Digitally signed by ARSHAD MAHMOOD Date: 2022.03.23 16:47:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in connection with charges under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 376 IPC.
Whether grounds exist for granting anticipatory bail despite filed charges.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of EnforcementReferred¶9
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohammad Haseen
State Of U.P.
Rajeev Misra
Arshad Mahmood
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
