Dismissed

Rakeeb Khan @ Arju v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Oct 2023ABAIL/10484/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This anticipatory bail application sought protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving cow slaughter and criminal breach of trust. The applicant was declared a proclaimed person for absconding. The court held no case for anticipatory bail existed and dismissed the application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rakeeb Khan @ Arju Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:191197

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10484 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rakeeb Khan @ Arju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharm Jeet Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Dharm Jeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.71 of 2023, under section 3/5A/5B/8 of Cow Slaughter Act and Sections 419 and 420 IPC, Police Station Karimuddinpur, District Ghazipur.

¶8

In short, the prosecution story is that upon information received the police reached the spot and when tried to stop the vehicle bearing Registration No.UP-60 AP-9269, the driver of the vehicle started running towards the village and thereafter accused ran away due to darkness leaving the vehicle. It is further alleged that police has recovered nine cow origin from the alleged vehicle. It is further alleged that when the police has checked the said vehicle then it was transpired that the vehicle in question is registered in the name of one Anil Kumar Gupta son of Krishna Chand, resident of Village-Sagar Pali Ballia. It is further alleged the comparison of chechis was also done but its comparison was not found, thereafter, by putting chechis number, then it is found that the registration of the said vehicle is UP-60 AT-9305 and Engine No.VARICOR12NYXJ17831, which is registered with the name of Shiv Bahadur son of Sigaram, resident of Village Karnal, District Ballia.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, in fact, no such incident has taken place. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Nothing incriminating material has been recovered from the possession or pointing out of the applicant. The recovery that has been shown is false and fabricated and there is no independent eye witness of the alleged

¶10

recovery. All the witnesses are police personal, whose statement is not reliable. He further submits that the applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 17 of the affidavit. He further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate with the trial.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant and has prayed for rejection by submitting that the court below has issued NBW against the applicant and the accused applicant is absconding and concealing himself to avoid service of warrant of arrest, hence, the court below has issued a proclamation against the applicant under section 82 Cr.P.C. He has further submitted that a proclaimed person, who has been absconding from the process of law, is not entitled to the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) - (2012) 8 SCC 730, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 171, Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar and another 2021 SCC Online SC 955 and Suresh Babu vs. State of UP and another - 2022 SCC Online ALL 679 .

¶12

In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as mentioned above, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicant as per prosecution case, gravity and nature of accusation, this Court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is made out in favour of applicant.

¶13

Accordingly, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 5.10.2023 Ajeet

¶15

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rakeeb Khan @ Arju v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rakeeb Khan @ Arju v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suraj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Saroj Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Vyash Kanhiya Chanchal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajkishor Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Trivedi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin Gupta @ Sachin Goyal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others