Application for anticipatory bail under S. 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed. Court noted completion of proceedings under S. 82 Cr.P.C. and rejection of earlier quashing petition found the application devoid of merits.
Anticipatory bail application dismissed.
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:206342
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11495 of 2023
Applicant :- Anuj Tripathi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bijendra Kumar Tripathi,Lokesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ganesh Kumar
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
the applicants have no criminal history as two more FIRs have been instituted against them and the closure report has been filed in it which has been mentioned in para-27 of the affidavit annexed with the anticipatory bail application. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed, they will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
Order Date :- 30.10.2023 Siddhant
Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicants given the completion of proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and the dismissal of their previous quashing petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shivam Vs. State of U.P. and Another, reported in AIROnline 2021 All 484Referred¶13
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anuj Tripathi
Abhay Tripathi
State of U.P.
Krishan Pahal
Siddhant Sahu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
