Dismissed¶24

Vivek and Anr. v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2023ABAIL/2461/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Manju Rani Chauhan, J.), order dated 5.1.2023 in Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 2461 of 2020 - Vivek and another v. State of U.P. Dismissal of anticipatory bail for want of any material showing apprehension of arrest; offences under Sections 332, 353, 323, 504 IPC in Case Crime No. 143 of 2020, P.S. Noida Sector-49, District Gautam Buddha Nagar; interim protection order dated 18.03.2020 noted; co-accused with similar role already released on bail on 07.02.2020; liberty granted to file regular bail application to be considered per Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a regular bail application; no anticipatory bail granted. ¶24

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

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2461 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Vivek And Anr Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Singh,Mahendra Pratap Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

List revised. No one has appeared on behalf of the applicant to press this application.

¶6

Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned AGA for the State is present.

¶7

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 143 of 2020, under Sections 332, 353, 323, 504 IPC, P.S. Noida Sector-49, District-Gautam Buddha Nagar , with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶8

On 18.03.2020, the following order was passed:-

¶9

"Learned A.G.A. states that instructions have not been received from the concerned police station.

¶10

Put up this case as fresh on 1.4.2020.

¶11

Till then, no coercive action in Case Crime No. 143 of 2020, under Sections 332, 353, 323 and 504 I.P.C., Police StationNoida Sector- 49, District- Gautam Budh Nagar shall be taken against the applicants."

¶12

Perusal of the order sheet goes to show that the co-accused persons having similar role has been released on bail on 07.02.2020.

¶13

In order to make disposal of this application, it is relevant to mention Section 438 Cr.P.C., which is reproduced herein below:-

¶14

" 438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.

¶15

(1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non- bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it

¶16

thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.

¶17

(2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub- section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including-

¶18

(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶19

(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶20

(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

¶21

(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub- section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section.

¶22

(3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, be shall be released on bail; and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under sub- section (1)."

¶23

After the close scrutiny of Section 438 Cr.P.C.(U.P. Act No.4 of 2019) and its relevant clauses as well as the entire records, the Court finds that there is nothing on record to show apprehension of arrest of the applicant.

¶24

In view of the above, this anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to file a regular bail application which may be decided keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825.

¶25

Order Date :- 5.1.2023 Jitendra/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vivek and Anr. v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek and Anr. v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharidhar Pandit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amla Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anish Khan Vs State of U.P.and Another

Rajesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Yogesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deva @ Sanjeev Kumar Arya and 6 Others Vs State of U.P.