Dismissed

Pintu Alias Daroga v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC31 Oct 2023ABAIL/11256/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Misc. Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court examined allegations of attempt to murder involving serious injuries. The Court found that no case for granting anticipatory bail was made out and rejected the application.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. rejected; applicant directed to move regular bail application before appropriate forum.

Pintu Alias Daroga Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:207605

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11256 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pintu Alias Daroga Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record. Mr Sunil Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant has filed vakalatnama on behalf of informant today, which is taken on record.

¶7

This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 386 of 2023, under Sections 341, 307, 506, 325 IPC, P.S. Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahar, during the pendency of investigation.

¶8

In short, allegation against the applicant is that he committed marpeet with the son of the informant on 23.07.2023 with an intention to kill him as a result of which son of the informant sustained serious injuries.

¶9

It is submitted that in this case applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the police with ulterior motive. There is no credible evidence to connect the applicant with the crime in question. The applicant is under apprehension of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the trial.

¶10

Learned Additional Government Advocate, has opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. It is further submitted that looking to the medical report of the victim as per which the victim sustained nine injuries including fractures, no case for bail is made out.

¶11

In the light of above, looking to the facts and

¶12

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, medical report of the injured, 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 rejected. Applicant is directed to move regular bail application before the appropriate forum and if such application is given, the court below shall consider and disposed of the bail application expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶14

Order Date :- 31.10.2023 RavindraKSingh

¶15

Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pintu Alias Daroga v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu Alias Daroga 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

Reena Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Shafi Qureshi Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Kumar Kesharwani Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Manisha Arya @ Aanya Vs State of U.P. and Another