Disposed

Guddu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2023ABAIL/1424/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an exemption application challenging the refusal of anticipatory bail, the Allahabad High Court declined to grant the relief, noting a pending quashing application. The court directed the trial court to decide the upcoming bail application strictly in accordance with Supreme Court precedents, specifically Satender Kumar Antil.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail refused; trial court directed to consider future bail application under Satender Kumar Antil guidelines.

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

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1424 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Guddu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Dubey,Krishna Kant Dubey

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Criminal Misc. Exemption Application No.1 of 2023 is allowed.

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Guddu seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.16 of 2020, under Sections 147, 436, 504 IPC, Police Station Hafizpur, District Hapur.

¶8

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

¶9

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and they has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

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

¶11

It appears from the perusal of the record that an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was moved by the present applicant alongwith other coaccused persons and in the said matter, the proceedings of the case were ordered to be stayed against the accused including the present applicant. It also reveals from the perusal of the record that subsequently the trial court, in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299, proceeded with the case and vide order dated 30.8.2022, accused applicant was summoned and at present non-bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant. Since application u/s

¶12

482 Cr.P.C. No.-11310 of 2021 is still pending, which was moved for the quashing of the entire proceedings alongwith the summoning order dated 4.3.2021, it will not be appropriate to consider the matter of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Hence, at this stage, no anticipatory bail is granted to the accusedapplicant. The prayer made in the application is refused.

¶13

However, it is directed to the trial court that if the accusedapplicant appears before the court and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided strictly in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 particularly, the directions given for the offences provided in Category B of the head "Categories / Types of Offences."

¶14

It is further directed that the learned court concerned, while considering the bail application of the applicant in the light of Satender Kumar Antil case (supra), shall pass an order strictly in compliance of the directions given in the aforesaid judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in letter and spirit, particularly complying with the order dated 21.3.2023 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid matter.

¶15

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶16

Order Date :- 11.4.2023 ss

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Guddu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pratyush Rajvanshi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saiyad Itrat Husain Vs State of U.P.

Raju Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Rawat Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Bharadwaj Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh @ Jaully Vs State of U.P. and Another