The Single Judge dismissed an application for anticipatory bail filed by Emamuddin and Azharuddin. The court rejected the plea due to the absence of an affidavit averment that the Investigating Officer had sought prior court permission to arrest the applicants.
The application for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
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. - 572 of 2022
Applicant :- Emamuddin And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava,Ajai Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Karunesh Narayan Tripathi
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1.Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State
Order Date :- 22.3.2022/YK
Digitally signed by YASHWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.03.22 17:27:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the anticipatory bail application is liable to be dismissed in the absence of an averment that the Investigating Officer has sought permission for arrest
Whether the offence punishable with a maximum sentence of 7 years precludes the grant of anticipatory bail
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Emamuddin
Azharuddin
State of U.P.
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
