Dismissed

Alok Parihar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2022ABAIL/6707/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by a student accused of threatening a complainant, demanding money, and creating a terror atmosphere. The court found the prosecution version supported by witnesses and noted the necessity of custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

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

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6707 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Alok Parihar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 179 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 286, 386, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, P.S. Colonelganj, District Prayagraj, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶7

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 abovementioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. The first information report was lodged against applicant and three co-accused named persons and some unknown persons alleging that accused persons used to demand 'Gunda' tax from complainant and due to their fear, complainant has given Rs. 10,000/- to them but thereafter on 02.05.2022 they again demanded 'gunda' tax and threatened the complainant and on the same night at 12.00 AM the accused persons including the applicant, armed with various weapons, came at the house of complainant and threatened him and they made firing in air and also hurled and bursted bombs and resultantly atmosphere of fear has prevailed in the locality and that police was informed but the accused persons ran away before the police came at the spot. Learned counsel submitted that only general allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons including the applicant. No specific role has been assigned to applicant and there is delay in lodging the first information report. There is no such version that any person has

¶8

sustained injury in the said incident. In fact applicant was assaulted by the informant and he has sustained injury but his report was not lodged. The applicant is a student and he has no criminal antecedents. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and argued that in the alleged incident the applicant and co-accused persons have threatened the complainant and extorted an amount of Rs. 10,000/- from him and they have again demanded money from him and to create atmosphere of terror and fear and they have made firing in air and hurled and bursted bombs at the house of complainant. It was pointed out that the prosecution version is supported by the independent eye-witnesses, namely, Ankit Singh, Neeraj Mishra and Akash Singh. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that in view of attending facts and circumstances of the case, custodial interrogation of applicant would be required for recovery of illicit weapons and bombs.

¶10

Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence the present application for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected .

¶11

Order Date :- 30.8.2022 A. Tripathi

¶12

Digitally signed by AKHILESH TRIPATHI Date: 2022.08.30 17:52:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Alok Parihar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Parihar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramvilas Kushwaha vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepak Vs State of U.P

Tabassum (Smt.) and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Javed Khan Vs State of U.P.

Uma Shanker Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Madhu Vs State of U.P. and Another