Single judge rejected anticipatory bail application seeking protection against arrest in a 1992 case involving kidnapping for murder. Court cited Apex Court principles and refused bail, noting the missing victim and applicants being summoned.
Prayer made in the application is refused.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:138456
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6750 of 2023
Applicant :- Jagdish Prasad And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Narayan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
and it is highly unnatural that till 18.10.1992 they did not even whisper before the informant about their last seen evidence. It is further submitted that besides the aforesaid highly suspicious evidence there is no evidence on record against the present applicants. It is further submitted that Cr. Revision No. 1103 of 1993 was preferred against the cognizance order dated 27.5.1993 passed by the concerned Magistrate wherein the proceedings of the case were stayed by this Court vide order dated 20.08.1993 but however the said revision was dismissed subsequently vide order dated 7.8.2019. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged as Case Crime No. 2014 of 1984, S.T. No. 291 of 1986 under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 324, 323 I.P.C. against the present informant, abducted person Sarveshwar Singh and other named accused persons by the applicant no.3 Vijay Singh and after filing of the charge sheet the trial in the aforesaid case was going on, wherein the abducted person Sarveshwar Singh was not appearing but it was not informed to the trial Court in that case on any occasion that the accused Sarveshwar Singh is unable to appear before the Court as he has been kidnapped. It is further submitted that during investigation of the case, the present applicants have been cooperative and they have not been declared as proclaimed offender by the court concerned and they are entitled for anticipatory bail. It is lastly submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.
the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.
Order Date :- 11.7.2023 Fhd
Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a murder kidnapping case pending since 1991.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jagdish Prasad And 2 Others
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
