Himanshu Rai v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
The Allahabad High Court rejected an application for anticipatory bail in a cheating and criminal intimidation case. The court held that the serious nature of allegations and potential obstruction of custodial interrogation preclude bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., vacating any interim order granted earlier.
What did the court decide?
Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected; interim anticipatory bail order, if any, stands vacated.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11994 of 2021
Applicant :- Himanshu Rai Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudeep Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Sudeep Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned counsel for the State.
The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 189 of 2021, under Sections 147, 323, 308, 427 IPC, P.S. Bhelupur, District-Varanasi , with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.
Earlier on 21.06.2021, interim anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He further submits that the applicant has always cooperated in the investigation and has not misused the liberty of aforesaid interim anticipatory bail, which was granted to him on 21.06.2021 by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court. He further submits that the entire allegations contained in the FIR is absolutely false and vague. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegation made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant has also been touched upon length. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given the serious nature of the accusations and role attributed to the applicant?
Whether the applicant's apprehension of arrest justifies exercising the court's discretionary power to grant bail despite potential hindrance to custodial interrogation?
Whether the balance between individual liberty and investigation interests tilts towards granting bail in this case?
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Himanshu Rai
Coram
Manju Rani Chauhan
Jitendra Kumar Yadav
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · January
- Registered
- Case no.
- ABAIL/11994/2021
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court