The Allahabad High Court refused an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC. The court held that as no charge-sheet was filed and the offences were punishable up to seven years, the applicant had no reason to believe he would be arrested, thus bail was not warranted.
Prayer for anticipatory bail refused; application disposed of.
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. - 3769 of 2023
Applicant :- Cheenu @ Sachin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Dixit,Anupam Shyam Dwivedi,Deepti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA and perused the material available on record.
Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Cheenu @ Sachin in Case Crime No.56 of 2023, under Sections 308, 336, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Babugarh, District - Hapur.
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.
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 of Sections 308, 336, 504, 506 IPC, 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 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.
The application stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 6.4.2023 Zafar
Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail is warranted where there is no apprehension of arrest for offences punishable up to seven years.
Whether the mere existence of an investigation warrants granting anticipatory bail before the filing of a charge-sheet.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and anotherReferred¶10
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Cheenu @ Sachin
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
Mohammad Zafar Ansari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
