The applicant sought anticipatory bail in a pending trial for alleged IPC offences. The Court noted that previous interim bail had been vacated in 2017 due to non-prosecution of a revision. The Court directed the applicant to seek regular bail before the trial court and disposed of the application without granting relief.
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. - 334 of 2022 Applicant :- Awadhesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sheetla Prasad Gound Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State through virtual mode and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Session Trial No. 417 of 2010 "State vs. Udaibhan and Others" , arising out of Case Crime No. 647 of 2008, under Sections - 323, 325, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Sikarara, District - Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial.
Upon consideration of the various aspects of this case, obviously the claim of the applicant is that insofar as the offence under Section - 308 I.P.C. alleged to have been committed by the applicant is concerned, it is brought to the notice of this Court that earlier a Criminal Revision No. 2808 of 2011 (Uday Bhan And Others vs. State of U.P. and Another) was moved before this Court, wherein, while considering the matter on its merit, on 26.07.2011, the proceeding of the concerned session trial number 417 of 2010, arising out of Case Case Crime No.647 of 2008 (State vs. Udaibhan and Others) had already been stayed.
Now, it so happened that during course of the proceeding, while the matter was taken subsequently on 14.07.2017, the revision was dismissed on account of fact that none appeared on behalf of the the revisionist to press the revision. It being so, the interim order availed earlier by the applicant stood vacated.
Now, the claim is that in case the interim protection is not granted to the applicant, his liberty will be put at stake. However, he claimed that an application has also been moved for recalling the aforesaid order of dismissal of the revision for non prosecution.
Also heard the learned A.G.A and perused the record.
Bare perusal of the record itself is indicative of fact that the trial is going on and the liberty that had been accorded to the applicant has come to an end in the year 2017 by the order of this Court dated 14.07.2017. Now, it being so, the case is going on against the applicant.
It is expected that if the applicant has not already sought the regular bail from the court concerned, then he may move the bail application for the same and in case he moves so, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law and he may also participate in the proceeding of the session trial concerned.
With the aforesaid observation, this application stands disposed of .
Order Date :- 3.2.2022 S Rawat
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Awadhesh
State of U.P.
Arvind Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
