Anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was heard. The court found no exceptional circumstances warranting bail, citing P. Chidambaram case, and rejected the application.
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. - 852 of 2022 Applicant :- Smt. Halima Parveen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Keshari Nath Tripathi,Ajay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Order Date :- 24.3.2022/YK
Digitally signed by YASHWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.03.26 11:56:45 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is warranted in the facts of the present case
Whether exceptional circumstances exist to warrant interference in the anticipatory bail application
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of EnforcementReferred¶6
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Halima Parveen
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA
JOINT SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE YASHWANT KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
