Dismissed

Bittu @ Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2023ABAIL/12666/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the single judge held that the case was not fit for granting anticipatory bail given the role assigned to the applicant and injuries sustained by the victim, though observations do not comment on merits.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail rejected as the case was not fit for grant of relief.

Bittu @ Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P and 2 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12666 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Bittu @ Ajay Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vinay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant- Bittu @ Ajay Kumar seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.259 of 2022, under sections- 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 504, 307 I.P.C., Police Station- Mandi Dhanaura, District- Amroha.

¶7

As per prosecution case, the present applicant- Bittu @ Ajay Kumar and his companion coaccused Jaideep along with two unknown persons came to the spot and stopped one Vishal Kumar when he was going on a motor-cycle; they used foul words and physically assaulted him with laathi-danda; the present applicant fired at him and he sustained a fire arm injury on his left thigh.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that he has been falsely implicated in this case; the injury report does not corroborate the version of the F.I.R. as no fire arm injury was sustained by the lone injured; he has no criminal antecedents; therefore his liberty needs to be protected by granting him protection under section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶9

Opposing the present application for anticipatory bail, it is stressed by the other side that the applicant is not only named in the F.I.R., but the role of firing on the injured has been assigned to the present applicant; it is pointed out that as per medical examination, the injured sustained ten injuries; some of which were caused by hard and blunt object and some were kept under observation and X-ray of left thigh was advised. It is further contended that number of injuries and the role assigned to the applicant disentitles him from the protection under section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶10

While considering the anticipatory bail application, it may be kept in mind that it is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised in suitable cases only. The powers under section 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be utilized in a routine manner and definitely as a substitute for regular bail. This discretionary power calls for existence of facts of the kind where the court is satisfied that its interference is necessary to further the cause of justice and to prevent misuse of process of law.

¶11

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it fit case to grant benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Hence, the anticipatory bail application is rejected .

¶13

However, any of the observations made herein shall not be taken as a comment on merits of the case and the court below shall be at liberty to form its own opinion at any stage of the case.

¶14

Order Date :- 28.1.2023

¶15

Saif

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bittu @ Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bittu @ Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yasmeen Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satish Kumar Mittal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Miglani Vs State of U.P.

Kailash and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Dexit Vs State of U.P.