Court rejected anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding charges under IPC and POCSO Act, finding no exceptional grounds after referring to Apex Court judgment.
Application for anticipatory bail is rejected.
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. - 2568 of 2022
Applicant :- Aayush Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Vishal Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Ajay Kumar Ojha and Mr. Shyam Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Shashi Kant Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party 2 has put in appearance by filing his vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record.
This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant Aayush Yadav in connection with Case Crime No. 88 of 2021, under sections 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Kalyanpur, District Fatehpur.
Having heard learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material brought record as well as complicity of the accused and also judgement of Apex Court in 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, present application for anticipatory bail is rejected.
Order Date :- 5.4.2022 HSM
Digitally signed by HARI SHANKER MISHRA Date: 2022.04.06 11:06:32 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the court should exercise discretionary jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the present facts.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of EnforcementReferred¶7
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019, SC 4198 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Aayush Yadav
State Of U.P.
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
