Dismissed

Kallu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC31 Oct 2023ABAIL/11604/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Allahabad High Court disposed of an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No anticipatory bail was granted. The court directed the applicant to file a regular bail application within one month and sought surrender during that period.

What did the court decide?

Direction to file regular bail application within one month. No coercive action during this period or until surrender.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:207541

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11604 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Kallu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Baleshwar Chaturvedi

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Shailendra Kumar Tripathi learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sri Virendra Kumar Gautam, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶8

The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to FIR/Case Crime No. 535 of 2019, under Sections 135 Electricity Act, P.S.- Saurikh, District- Kannauj.

¶9

After arguing for some time, applicant's counsel submits that the present application for anticipatory bail may be disposed of with a direction to file a regular bail application which may be decided keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another , reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 825 .

¶10

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, no case is made out for interference u/s 438 Cr.P.C. The present anticipatory bail application is disposed of with a direction that the applicant shall surrender before the concerned court within one month from today and in case, a regular bail application is filed, the same be decided in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) .

¶12

For the period of one month from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the concerned court, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant, in the above case.

¶13

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶14

Order Date :- 31.10.2023 Shalini

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kallu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallu 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

Saddam Kha Vs State of U.P.

Phoolchand Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Anuj Tripathi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Radheyshyam @ Bholoo Vs State of U.P. and Another

Majid Vs State of U.P.

Rinkul Goswami Vs State of U.P. and Another