This application for anticipatory bail was disposed of. The Court accepted the State's submission that Section 41-A Cr.P.C. protects the applicant from arrest, rendering the bail application unnecessary under the principles of Arnesh Kumar.
The application was disposed of without proceeding further.
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:218240
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11231 of 2023 Applicant :- Harshit Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prabha Shanker Mishra,Ayush Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
Order Date :- 17.11.2023 /safi
Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail is required when Section 41-A Cr.P.C. provides protection against arrest for offences punishable up to seven years.
Whether the apprehension of arrest is negated by the issuance of a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C.
The applicability of the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar and subsequent Supreme Court decisions to this factual matrix.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and anotherReferred¶9
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
Md. Asfak Alam Vs. State of Jharkhand & AnrReferred¶9
Criminal Appeal No. 2207 of 2023 (Md. Asfak Alam Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr) 2023 INSC 660 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Harshit Chaudhary
State of U.P.
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
