Dismissed

Dheerendra Kumar Nishad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Mar 2023ABAIL/2313/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court refused relief. The court held that the applicant had no reasonable apprehension of arrest and no indulgence was warranted as no charge-sheet was submitted, noting Directive Principles in Arnesh Kumar.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail refused; application disposed of.

Dheerendra Kumar Nishad 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. - 2313 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Dheerendra Kumar Nishad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Dheerendra Kumar Nishad in Case Crime No. 210 of 2022 under Sections 379, 411, 353 I.P.C., 4/21 Mines and Mineral Development of Regulation Act, 1957, 3/5 Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station- Panwadi, District- Mahoba.

¶7

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. It is further argued that investigation is going-on and till date no charge-sheet has been submitted. Applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 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. The investigation of the case is going on.

¶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 applicant are of Sections 379, 411, 353 I.P.C., 4/21 Mines and Mineral Development of Regulation Act, 1957, 3/5 Damage to Public Property Act, 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

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶14

Order Date :- 24.3.2023 Fhd

¶15

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dheerendra Kumar Nishad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheerendra Kumar Nishad 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

Raju Jatav@ Pawan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishna Avatar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Singh @ Chhunnu Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Braj Mohan Vs State of U.P. and Another