Application for anticipatory bail was rejected as no exceptional circumstances were found warranting interference despite focusing on the nature of the offence and cited precedent.
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. - 2279 of 2022
Applicant :- Shubham Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Though It Principal Secretary (Home)Lucknow And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Order Date :- 20.4.2022 YK
Digitally signed by YASHWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.04.26 13:00:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the present application for anticipatory bail warrants exception under Section 438 Cr.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
Shubham Kumar
State Of U.P.
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
