The Court rejected an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by Rishabh Chaturvedi, who faced charges of rape and related offences. After evaluating the nature of accusation and available materials, the Court held that a case for bail was not made out.
Anticipatory bail application rejected; no bail granted.
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. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7516 of 2022
Applicant :- Rishabh Chaturvedi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Vakalatnama along with short counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the first informant by Sri Sanjay Ojha, Advocate is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. for the opposite parties.
The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail as the accused-applicant- Rishabh Chaturvedi is apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime No.79 of 2022, under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 67 I.T. Act , Police Station-Sahapau, District- Hathras.
Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The allegation against the applicant is that due to poor condition of the victim, the applicant made physical relationship with the victim. The allegation against the applicant is that the applicant aired the photograph of the victim. The whole prosecution story is baseless, as there is no evidence against the applicant for committing rape upon the victim. No disclosed offence is made out against the applicant. Further submission is that the applicant shall fully cooperate with the investigation. Hence, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail and he is ready to cooperate with the trial. If the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will never misuse the same.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed anticipatory bail application on the ground that allegation against the applicant is serious in nature. In her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has supported the prosecution version. Therefore, the applicant is not liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail application.
It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.
In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is not made out.
The anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, rejected .
Order Date :- 27.9.2022
Anuj Singh
Digitally signed by ANUJ PRATAP SINGH Date: 2022.09.27 13:26:40 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given the nature of the accusations under Sections 376, 504 and 506 IPC.
Whether the merits of the case and the materials on record justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
Whether the applicant's apprehension of arrest is reasonable based on the prosecution's allegations.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶10
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rishabh Chaturvedi
State Of U.P.
Suresh Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
