The court disposed of an anticipatory bail application. Relying on Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and specific precedents, the court held that since the maximum punishment was seven years, there was no arrest apprehension, rendering the application unnecessary.
Application disposed of as anticipatory bail is not required under the circumstances given;
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:224001
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11600 of 2023
Applicant :- Zeeshan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Noor Muhammad,Yogesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
Order Date :- 28.11.2023
safi
Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail is necessary when offences punishable with up to seven years imprisonment are covered by Section 41-A Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and anotherReferred¶10
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
Md. Asfak Alam Vs. State of Jharkhand & AnrReferred¶10
Criminal Appeal No. 2207 of 2023 (Md. Asfak Alam Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr) 2023 INSC 660 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Zeeshan
State of U.P.
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
