The applicant moved for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding a non-bailable offence. The court found no evidence of apprehension of arrest on record and dismissed the application with liberty to file a regular bail application.
Application dismissed; liberty to file a regular bail application granted.
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. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5310 of 2020
Applicant :- Amla Prasad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
List revised. No one has appeared on behalf of the applicant to press this application. Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State is present.
The instant application is being moved by the applicant invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. that he has every reason to believe that he may be arrested on the accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence in connection with Case Crime No.365 of 2019, under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Police Station-Hata, District-Kushi Nagar.
Perusal of the order sheet goes to show that from 01.09.2020, no one has appeared to argue the matter.
In order to make disposal of this application, it is relevant to mention Section 438 Cr.P.C., which is reproduced herein below:-
"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.
(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 thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.
(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-
(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(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;
(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous
permission of the Court;
(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub- section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section.
(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)."
After the close scrutiny of Section 438 Cr.P.C.(U.P. Act No.4 of 2019) and its relevant clauses, the Court finds that there is nothing on record to show apprehension of arrest of the applicant.
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.
Order Date :- 4.1.2023 Rahul.
Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the anticipatory bail application qualifies for的方向 based on the available evidence of apprehension of arrest.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherReferred¶19
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 · Who else cites this
Amla Prasad
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
