The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The State counsels submitted that Section 41-A Cr.P.C. protections and Supreme Court precedents preclude arrest apprehension. The court held further proceedings unnecessary and disposed of the application.
Application disposed of without granting bail or other relief.
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:224892
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11507 of 2023
Applicant :- Somwati
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Wahid Jamal,Pushpendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Pathak
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
3.Learned AGA submitted that the offences levelled against the applicant are punishable with the imprisonment for a maximum period upto seven years. It is further submitted that a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. has been given to the accused applicant in this matter by the police, and as such the applicant has no reason to believe that he has been arrested by the police.
Order Date :- 29.11.2023 Fhd
Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the applicant has received notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and anotherReferred¶9
(2014) 8 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
Md. Asfak Alam Vs. State of Jharkhand & AnrReferred¶9
2023 INSC 660 · Who else cites this
Somwati
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
