Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2023ABAIL/12369/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejected an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by two applicants against the State of U.P. The court found that the FIR established the participation of the applicants in the incident involving a firearm dispute, providing no grounds for bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. rejected.

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

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12369 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Imtiyaz Ahmad And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pulak Ganguly Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants today is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.499 of 2018, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Premnagar, District Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Facts in brief are that there was dispute between the injured and the applicants alongwith other co-accused persons in which fire arm was used causing injuries on the thigh of the injured. Initially, the case was registered u/s 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. which was challenged before this Court in writ petition for quashing of F.I.R. in which prayer for quashing the same was rejected by this Court and protection from arrest was granted till the submission of charge sheet.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in this case after conclusion of investigation charge sheet has been submitted. The specific role of making fire has not been assigned to these applicants by the injured, therefore, no offence u/s 307 is made out against these applicants. Now, on the basis of charge sheet process has been issued by the learned court concerned in pursuance of which there is apprehension of arrest against the applicants, therefore, requested to grant anticipatory bail. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the trial.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, it appears that in this

¶12

case as per the F.I.R. the participation of applicant no.1 was found to be established and during investigation the name of applicant no.2 was brought into light. Further a dispute arose between both the parties and fire arm was used causing injury on the thigh of the injured by applicants and other co-accused persons. In such a situation, there is no ground to grant anticipatory bail in favour of these applicants.

¶13

Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is, hereby, rejected.

¶14

Order Date :- 11.1.2023 Ashok Gupta

¶15

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imtiyaz Ahmad and Another 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

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

Mahtab Amad 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.