Criminal Misc. ANTICIPATORY BAIL Application under section 438 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The court held that proceedings remained held up for over two years and nine months due to the applicant's non-appearance after summoning, barring any indulgence.
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. - 2204 of 2022
Applicant :- Yogesh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State.
Perused the record.
This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1980 of 2019 under sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Ahar, District Bulandshahr.
Record shows that complainant opposite party-2 filed a complaint dated 22.11.2018 in Court of C.J.M, Bulandshahr. Same was registered as Case No. 2549 of 2018, under sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Ahar, District Bulandshahr. Subsequently, the statement of complainant and that of his witnesses were recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above, concerned Magistrate, recorded his prima facie satisfaction and simultaneously summoned the applicant on 2.7.2019 in aforementioned complaint case.
At the very outset, learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that applicants were summoned on 2.7.2019. However, inspite of the fact that a period of more than two years and nine months has rolled by from the date of summoning order dated 2.7.2019, applicants have not yet appeared before Court below. Consequently, proceedings of above mentioned case have remained held up for more than two years and nine months on account of noncooperation of applicant. As such, applicants do not deserve any indulgence by this Court.
When confronted with above, learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.4.2022 Arshad
Digitally signed by ARSHAD MAHMOOD Date: 2022.04.25 16:34:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipation bail should be granted when applicant failed to appear in the summons case for over two years and nine months without valid reason.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Yogesh And Another
Rajeev Misra
Arshad Mahmood
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
