The court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It held that the applicant lacked reasonable grounds to apprehend arrest, rendering anticipatory bail unnecessary.
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. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1991 of 2023
Applicant :- Mannu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Mannu in Case Crime No. 164 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Knowledge Park, District - Gautam Budh Nagar.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA and perused the material available on record.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Investigation in the matter is going on. It is further submitted that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest any time.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, offences levelled against the applicant 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 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 applicant has no reason to believe that he 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.
This Court directs that the Investigating Officer of the case would comply with the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Arnesh Kumar case (supra) in letter and spirit.
The application stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 18.4.2023 safi
Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant has a reasonable apprehension of arrest warranting anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and AnotherExplained¶10
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mannu
State of U.P.
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
