The single judge rejected the anticipatory bail application due to the applicant's failure to appear before the court below for over two years, despite a summons and a dismissed revision under Section 319 Cr.P.C., citing P. Chidambaram judgment.
Application for anticipatory bail 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. - 605 of 2022
Applicant :- Lalloo @ Kamal Jeet Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant in connection with Case Crime No.0181 of 2008, under Section 363, 366, 506 IPC, Police Station- Kankarkheda, District Meerut.
Perused the record.
At the very outset, learned A.G.A. submits that applicant was summoned by Court below in proceedings under section 319 Cr.P.C. Feeling aggrieved by same, applicant filed criminal revision No. 3655 of 2011 (Lalloo Vs. State of U.P. and Another) which came to be dismissed vide order dated 6.11.2019. However, even after expiry of period of more than two years and four months, applicant has not yet appeared before court below.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material brought on record as well as complicity of accused and also judgment of the Apex Court in the case of 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, the present application for anticipatory bail is rejected.
Order Date :- 23.3.2022 Arshad
Digitally signed by ARSHAD MAHMOOD Date: 2022.03.23 16:49:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether exceptional grounds exist to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the anticipatory bail application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of EnforcementReferred¶9
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lalloo @ Kamal Jeet
Rajeev Misra
Arshad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
