Kapil Malik v. State of U.P. and Another
Case brief
What is this about?
Kapil Malik applied for anticipatory bail in a theft case alleging innocence and lack of credible evidence. The rejection was based on the need for custodial interrogation to recover alleged stolen goods.
What did the court decide?
The application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was rejected.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5944 of 2022
Applicant :- Kapil Malik Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Jee Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.390/2021, under Sections 380/411 IPC, P.S. Kankerkheda, District Meerut with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. The complainant has lodged the first information report of this case on 02.06.2021 alleging that on the night of 31.05.2021, his tractor and trolley was stolen after breaking the main gate of his plot. Learned counsel submitted that applicant is not named in the first information report. The tractor has already been recovered from co-accused Neetu, Mohit and Sunny and at that time they have not disclosed the name of applicant and that in their supplementary statements, the complainant as well as co-accused persons have mentioned the name of applicant but it has not been clarified by the complainant that on what basis he has named the applicant. The allegation that the stolen trolley is lying with applicant, is thoroughly false and that there is no evidence against him. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. It was further submitted that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail he would
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in the charges related to theft.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Kapil Malik
- respondent
State of U.P.
Coram
Raj Beer Singh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · September
- Registered
- Case no.
- ABAIL/5944/2022
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court