Dismissed¶14

Brijesh Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 May 2023ABAIL/4003/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail; Section 438 Cr.P.C.; maintainability; non-bailable warrant operating against applicant; charge sheet dated 16.08.2022; cognizance and summons; Case Crime No. 174 of 2022; P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Banda; sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 333, 363, 427 IPC; Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act; Section 3/4 Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act; State of M.P. Vs. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 171; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Rajeev Misra, J.; application rejected 12.5.2023.

What did the court decide?

Since a non-bailable warrant is operating against the applicant, the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable; the application therefore fails and is liable to be rejected. ¶13

Brijesh Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4003 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Prajapati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Prajapati,Suresh Kumar Verma

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for state.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant-Brijesh Kumar Prajapati in connection with Case Crime No. 174 of 2022 under sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 333, 363, 427 I.P.C., Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/4 Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, Police StationKotwali Nagar, District Banda, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

After some argument, the learned counsel for applicants fairly submits that after submission of charge sheet dated 16.08.2022 before court concerned, cognizance was taken upon same and simultaneously applicant was summoned by court below. However, in spite of service of summon, applicant did not appear before court below. Resultantly, non-bailable warrant has been issued against applicant.

¶10

At this juncture, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of present application for anticipatory bail. He has invited the attention of Court to the judgement of Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2SCC 171 and on basis thereof, he submits that since non-

¶11

bailable warrant is operating against applicant, therefore, the present application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. Consequently, same is liable to be dismissed on aforesaid ground.

¶12

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

¶13

As a result, present application for anticipatory bail fails and is liable to be rejected.

¶14

It is accordingly rejected.

¶15

Order Date :- 12.5.2023 YK

¶16

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

Brijesh Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mahendra Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Braj Bhushan Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Kumar Verma Abhihit Adhikari Vs State of U.P.

Omkar Gangwar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others