Dismissed

Ramesh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jun 2023ABAIL/5641/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused anticipatory bail to the applicants in a case involving sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 452, 354 IPC. The court dismissed the prayer but directed the trial court to hear and dispose of the bail application expediently if decided later.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail refused; direction issued to trial court to expedite hearing of bail application.

Ramesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:125416

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5641 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ramesh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.0567 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 452, 354 IPC, Police Station Khorabar, District Gorakhpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case, in fact, no such incident has taken place. The applicants have never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The impugned FIR has been lodged against 11 named persons including the applicants. Earlier the father of the applicant nos.1 and 2 has lodged NCR against the informant and his family members and due to this reason, as a counterblast the informant has lodged the impugned FIR on false and fabricated ground. The applicants are having no previous criminal history.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants and has submitted that the applicants have inflicted injuries to two persons, namely, Reeta Devi and Sunil and molested the girl of first informant, namely, Shivangi, therefore, in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants, they are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicants is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶10

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made

¶11

out against the applicants.

¶12

After having very carefully examined, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the material brought on record, there is no justification for granting anticipatory bail to the applicants. Accordingly, the prayer to that extent is hereby refused.

¶13

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that directions may be given to the court below to consider the bail application of the applicants in view of the judgment in the case Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

¶14

In the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for deciding of the bail application. For that purpose, the cases have been divided under four categories. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the trial courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines, while considering the bail application. This Court has no doubt, that as and when, the applicants approach the trial court for bail, the trial court shall definitely follow the directions given in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

¶15

However, considering the nature of the allegations and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court concerned and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra).

¶16

With the above directions, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of finally.

¶17

Order Date :- 8.6.2023 Ajeet

¶18

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

Ramesh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raghuveer and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sooraj Paswan Vs State of U.P.

Sarvesh Dubey @ Raju Dubey Vs State of U.P.

Hari Singh Vs State of U.P.