Dismissed¶11

Mohd. Arif @ Khachauli v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 May 2022ABAIL/3864/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Rajeev Misra, J.) rejects anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. of Mohd. Arif @ Khachauli in Case Crime No. 0732 of 2021, P.S. Kareli, District Prayagraj; FIR dated 31.12.2021 by first informant Jeeshan; offences under IPC sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307, 308, 386, 427; applicant a named accused among nine named and fifteen unknown accused; three persons injured; reliance placed on P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198; no exceptional ground found; application rejected on 7.5.2022.

What did the court decide?

Upon hearing counsel, perusing the material on record, considering the complicity of the accused and the Apex Court judgment in P. Chidambaram, the Court found no exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. ¶10

Mohd. Arif @ Khachauli Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3864 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Arif @ Khachauli Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shadab Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Inamul Haq, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Shadab Ali, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Chandra Kant Bhardwaj, learned counsel for first informant.

¶6

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant Mohd. Arif @ Khachauli in connection with Case Crime No. 0732 of 2021, under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307, 308, 386, 427 IPC, P.S. Kareli, District Prayagraj.

¶7

Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 31.12.2021, a prompt F.I.R. dated 31.12.2021 was lodged by first informant Jeeshan and was registered as Case Crime No. 0732 of 2021, under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307, 308, 386, 427 IPC, P.S. Kareli, District Prayagraj. In the aforesaid F.I.R., nine persons namely Ali, Mohad. Asad, Arif alias Kachholi, Sanjay Singh, Imran alias Guddu, Saif alias Mama, Aman, Kulloo Atiq Ahmad Khalera Bhai, Ali Abba have been nominated as named accused, whereas fifteen unknown persons have also been arraigned as accused.

¶8

At the very outset, learned counsel for first informant contends that in the occurrence giving rise to this application for anticipatory bail, three persons have sustained injuries. Applicant is a named accused, as such, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court.

¶9

When confronted with above, learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, 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.

¶11

Accordingly, present application for anticipatory bail is rejected.

¶12

Order Date :- 7.5.2022 HSM

¶13

Digitally signed by HARI SHANKER MISHRA Date: 2022.05.07 20:08:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Arif @ Khachauli v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Arif @ Khachauli v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandan Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun Dubey Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Kumar Patel and 3 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Asad Ali @ Mohd. Asad Ali and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another