Dismissed

Mahtab Amad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2023ABAIL/11547/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected an anticipatory bail application under s. 438 Cr.P.C. because, despite the maximum sentence being less than seven years, the applicant was avoiding the court process, negating the grounds for bail. The applicant is directed to move regular bail once appearing.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected; directed to file regular bail upon appearance.

Mahtab Amad Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11547 of 2022 Applicant :- Mahtab Amad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ehtesham Afsar Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶4

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.310 of 2022, under sections 3/5/8 of the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act- 1955, Police Station Deoraniya, District Bareilly, during the pendency of investigation/trial.

¶5

Facts in brief are that an F.I.R. was lodged against unknown person u/s 3/5/8 of the U.P. Cow Slaughter Act- 1955. Further submitted that the investigation is going on, therefore, there is apprehension of arrest of the applicant because his name was brought into light during investigation. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the trial.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and urged that after conclusion of investigation charge sheet has been submitted by the police and the offences said to have been committed by the applicant are punishable with sentence less than 7 years.

¶7

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, it appears that all the offences said to have been committed by the applicant are punishable with sentence less than 7 years and after investigation charge sheet has been submitted by the police but the applicant is avoiding the process of the court. In such a situation, there is no ground to grant anticipatory bail in favour of this applicant, hence the anticipatory bail application is, hereby, rejected.

¶8

However, if applicant appears and moves bail application before the learned court concerned, the same shall be decided as expeditiously as possible in the light of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another LL 2021 SC 550.

¶9

Order Date :- 11.1.2023/Ashok Gupta

¶10

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahtab Amad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahtab Amad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bachhu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kashiram Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jivika Vs State of U.P and Another

Vivek and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandan Tiwari @ Jitendra Kumar Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P.

Imtiyaz Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P and Another