The High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. because a notice under Section 41-A had already been served to the applicant, implying no apprehension of arrest.
Application dismissed as notice u/s 41-A was already served, removing apprehension of 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:185863
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10739 of 2023
Applicant :- Kapinjal Yadav @Kapil Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kumar Anish Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
Order Date :- 25.9.2023 Shivangi
Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kapinjal Yadav @Kapil Yadav
State of U.P.
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
