Dismissed

Dau Dayal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2023ABAIL/1870/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge judgment declined a prayer for anticipatory bail. The court held that the offences charged, punishable up to seven years, did not demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of arrest sufficient to attract the protection of Section 438 Cr.P.C., rendering the application untenable.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for anticipatory bail is refused and the application is disposed of.

Dau Dayal and 2 Others 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. - 1870 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Dau Dayal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bhupendra Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants - Dau Dayal , Kunwar Ji and Harpal in Case Crime No.367 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406, 323, 342, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Mahuwakhera, District - Aligarh.

¶6

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

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have no concern with the present matter. They have been falsely implicated in this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. Applicants' case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that if the applicants are enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest any time.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer.

¶9

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.

¶10

In this matter, as is evident from the record, offences levelled against the applicants are of Sections 420, 406, 323, 342, 504, 506 I.P.C., which are punishable with the imprisonment upto seven years. Specific provisions under Section 41-A CrPC have been provided giving protection to the accused person from arrest for the offences punishable upto seven years' imprisonment and in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has also emphasized upon the power of police to arrest without warrant and it has been clarified that a balance between individual liberty and societal order should be

¶11

made while exercising power of arrest. It has also been directed that where the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years, whether with or without fine, the police officer shall not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate shall not authorize detention casually and mechanically. Even in Section 438 CrPC it has been promulgated that accused must have reason to believe that he may be arrested in cognizanble offence by the police to get protection of anticipatory bail. In the light of aforesaid provisions, the applicants have no reason to believe that they may be arrested. Hence, having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no indulgence is warranted in the matter. Prayer made in the application is refused.

¶12

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶13

Order Date :- 13.4.2023 ss

¶14

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

Dau Dayal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dau Dayal and 2 Others 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

Shyambir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sant Prakash Goel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prashant and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagdish Prasad and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahid Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Vs State of U.P through principal Secretary Home Government