The High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC. The court held that since a notice under Section 41-A CrPC had already been served, no apprehension of arrest existed, rendering the application moot.
Application dismissed; notice under Section 41-A CrPC deemed to provide sufficient protection against arrest.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178524
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10003 of 2023
Applicant :- Fardeen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
Order Date :- 15.9.2023 Shivangi
Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail is required given that a notice under Section 41-A CrPC has been served.
Whether there exists an apprehension of arrest warranting anticipatory bail.
Whether the application should be dismissed based on service of notice under Section 41-A.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Fardeen
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
