The High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by Juned in a theft case alleging involvement based on co-accused statements and recovered items, despite the applicant not being named in the FIR or having any physical evidence against him.
Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC 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. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8804 of 2022
Applicant :- Juned Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Lal Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.900 of 2021, under Sections 380, 411, 457 IPC, P.S. Bita-2, District Gautam Buddh Nagar with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
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 above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. The first information report was lodged against unknown persons, alleging that on the night of 22.08.2021 some unknown persons have committed theft of jewellery and other household articles and cash from the house of informant. Learned counsel submitted that applicant is not named in the first information report. The involvement of applicant has been shown on the basis of statement of coaccused persons and except that, there is no evidence against applicant. No recovery has been effected from applicant. It was further submitted that along with this case, applicant was falsely implicated in three more cases of similar nature. It was submitted that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail he would co-operate during investigation and trial and would
obey the conditions of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and argued that the co-accused persons have disclosed that some stolen jewellery/articles are lying with applicant and thus, custodial interrogation of applicant would be required for recovery purposes.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations and all attending facts of the matter, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence the present application for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
However, it is directed that in case, applicant appears/surrenders before the court below within three weeks from today and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with settled law.
Order Date :- 16.11.2022 Neeraj
Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.11.16 15:59:45 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC given the allegations of theft and lack of recovery.
Whether the apprehension of arrest and the nature of the charges justify the grant of pre-arrest bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Juned
Raj Beer Singh
Neeraj Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
