Dismissed

Sitaram and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Jan 2023ABAIL/11447/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejected an anticipatory bail application under S. 438 Cr.P.C., holding that no apprehension of arrest existed as the charge sheet was submitted and the charges were punishable with imprisonment under seven years. It directed the applicants to move for bail before the concerned court.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected; applicants directed to file bail application before the concerned court.

Sitaram and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11447 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sitaram And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Bali Ram Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.

¶6

Facts in brief are that on 2.5.2022 at about 8 p.m. in the night, the applicants entered into the house of the informant and made assault causing injuries to the mother of the informant and also misbehaved with the informant and her mother.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. There was family dispute relating to the property between the informant and the applicants that was the reasons false F.I.R. was lodged. There is no any such incident took place. Further submitted that the allegation made against the applicants are self contradictory. F.I.R. was also lodged belatedly without any explanation. Lastly, it is submitted that investigation is going on, therefore, the applicants are under apprehension of imminent arrest. In case, they are released on bail, they would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the trial.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail and urged that in this case after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted. Now trial is going on. Further urged that in this incident, injuries were also caused to the informant & her mother and offence said to be committed by the applicants are punishable with imprisonment below seven years, therefore, there is no apprehension of arrest by the police. They are avoiding the process of the learned court .

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record since after conclusion of investigation charge sheet has been submitted by the police and offences are punishable with imprisonment below seven years, therefore, there is no apprehension of arrest by the police. Hence, no ground is made out for anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application of

¶10

applicants Sitaram, Prem Prakash Paswan and Ram Prakash Paswan involved in Case Crime No. 75 of 2022, under Sections 323, 452, 354-Kha, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Nand Ganj, District Ghazipur is hereby rejected .

¶11

However, it is directed that in case, the applicants appear and move bail application before the court concerned, it will be heard and decided expeditiously as far as possible in the light of case decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another LL 2021 SC 550.

¶12

Order Date :- 30.1.2023 A. Singh

¶13

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

Sitaram and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sitaram and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrabahadur Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Aslam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Maulana Qambar Hussain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Guddi Devi Vs State of U.P.

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

Narendrakumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P and Another