Dismissed

Sarvesh and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2022ABAIL/6354/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The Court held that it was not a fit case for interim protection because proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. had already been completed, the applicants had misused the process of law, and they had approached this Court after a similar petition was dismissed herein.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed. No interim protection granted.

Sarvesh and Another Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6354 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sarvesh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,A.C.Srivastava,Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Krishnakant Dubey, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Santosh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for applicants as well as Sri A.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned Additional Government Advocate for State.

¶6

The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to Case Crime No. 0028 of 2017, under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Niwadi, DistrictGhaziabad.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicants along with co-accused Monu are said to have assaulted the brother of the informant on 04.02.2017 at about 6:00 p.m. causing grievous injuries to him and said to have hurled abuses at him and also intimidated him when the informant along with his brother was on the way to his village.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants are absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. There is nothing on record to state that they have committed any offence. The injuries sustained are simple in nature. Learned counsel for the applicants has further stated that the present F.I.R. is a counter blast to the F.I.R. No. 253 of 2016 lodged by the daughter of applicant no. 1 under Section 498A/406/34 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicants has also stated that the applicants were granted anticipatory bail till submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and has cooperated during investigation and has already cooperating in trial as prosecution witnesses have already been examined. Learned counsel for the applicants has next stated that the applicants have no criminal antecedents except the case instituted by the same informant after the institution of the present F.I.R.

¶9

Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that already the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were completed against the applicants and they have misused the process of law and an F.I.R. was lodged under Section 174 I.P.C. on 26.06.2019 and the applicants are deliberately avoiding the due process of law. He further stated that the injuries sustained are grievous in nature. The medical board was formed to examine the injuries of the injured persons and all the injuries were found to be grievous in nature. Learned counsel for the informant has also stated that the applicants had filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in this Court and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 04.03.2022 wherein the applicants were provided an opportunity to take the benefit of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004(57) ALR 290 approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009(3) ADJ 322 (SC) , but instead of taking opportunity they refused to follow it. The applicants by concealing the said fact have approached this Court by invoking the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. without seeking recourse at the Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has also placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 730 , wherein it has been held that if the proceedings under Section 82 and 83 are completed against the applicants, they cannot be granted any relief.

¶11

Considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the injuries sustained by the injured persons, law settled in the case of Lavesh (supra) and also the facts of the case, I do not find it a fit case for the interim protection or anticipatory bail.

¶12

In view of the above, the present anticipatory bail application is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 8.12.2022 Sunil Kr. Gupta

¶14

Digitally signed by SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA Date: 2022.12.09 17:12:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sarvesh and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saurabh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramanand Vs State of U.P.

Ameer Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Karandeep Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anjani Verma Vs State of U.P.