Dismissed

Pawan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2023ABAIL/10130/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for abduction. Finding no material on record demonstrating apprehension of arrest, the Court held the grant was not justified solely on alleged seriousness or imaginary fear.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed with liberty to approach competent court. Interim order discharged.

Pawan Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10130 of 2021

¶2

Applicant :- Pawan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Munendra Nath Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶4

List revised. None appears on behalf of the applicant to address the Court. Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

¶5

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.006 of 2021, under Section 366 I.P.C., Police Station-Sihani Gate, District-Ghaziabad with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶6

On 01.06.2021, protection was granted to the applicant.

¶7

Perusal of the order sheet goes to show that from 15.11.2022, the matter has not been argued by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. submits that from the records it is clear that the married lady has been enticed away by the applicant. The offence is serious in nature. He further submits that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶9

In order to make disposal of this application, it is relevant to mention Section 438 Cr.P.C., which is reproduced herein below:-

¶10

"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.

¶11

(1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non- bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.

¶12

(2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub- section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including-

¶13

(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶14

(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶15

(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

¶16

(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub- section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section.

¶17

(3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, be shall be released on bail; and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under sub- section (1)."

¶18

After the close scrutiny of Section 438 Cr.P.C.(U.P. Act No.4 of 2019) and its relevant clauses, the Court finds that there is nothing on record to show apprehension of arrest of the applicant.

¶19

In view of the above, this anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to avail proper remedy as provided under law.

¶20

Interim order, if any, stands discharged .

¶21

It is open to the Court concerned to proceed in accordance with law.

¶22

Registrar (Compliance) is directed to inform about this order to the concerned Court/authority for necessary information and compliance, forthwith.

¶23

Order Date :- 12.1.2023/Rahul.

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pawan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan v. State of U.P.

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

Beena Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ansar Mohammad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Shailendra and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ahmad and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munna Rai @ Pradeep and 15 Others Vs State of U.P.