Dismissed

Mohd. Shahid v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2023ABAIL/5466/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In ananticipatorybailapplicationunderSection438Cr.P.C.,the court heard noargumentsfromtheapplicantandfoundno砼ectiverecordingaprehensionofarrestconcludingthatnocasewasoutforgまあn ticipating siauthoritytoexercise discretioning hisfavor andrejecting theapplication ordinatingthatitdoesnotinterferewisanarrestsofarorthowdoesnotdetainthecourttaganinguallygivingitssubstantivtomeanintransigiblesindsAnyway,t

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected; applicant not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Mohd. Shahid 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. - 5466 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Shahid Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Firoz Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mamta Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

List revised. None appears on behalf of the applicant to press this application. Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State is present.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.794 of 2020, under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Kareilly, District-Prayagraj with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶7

On 08.04.2021, learned counsel for the applicant was granted time to bring on record the material collected by the Investigating Officer in support of charge sheet.

¶8

Till date nothing has been filed nor learned counsel for the applicant has appeared to argue the matter even in revised call.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. submits that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶10

Perusal of the record goes to show that there is nothing on record to show apprehension of arrest of the applicant nor has any such averment been made in the affidavit regarding the same.

¶11

Object of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this court can-not be put in a straitjacket formula, but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from Justice , apprehension of tampering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation, trial or society, etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society.

¶12

In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicant as per prosecution case, gravity and nature of accusation as well as reasons mentioned above, this court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure is made out in favour of applicant.

¶13

Accordingly, the application under section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected .

¶14

It is open to the Court/authority concerned to proceed in accordance with law.

¶15

It is clarified that observations made in this order at this stage is

¶16

limited for the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The investigating officer of this case shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions according to law on the basis of materials/ evidences on record.

¶17

Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Court/authority for necessary information and compliance.

¶18

Order Date :- 1.2.2023 Rahul.

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Shahid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Shahid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aditya Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Rajbali Vs State of U.P.and Another

Vinod Kumar Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P.

Satyapal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tahira Bano Vs State of U.P.