Single-judge Anticipatory Bail Order. The applicant was served notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. The learned AGA submitted there is no apprehension of arrest. The court held that without such apprehension, the application is not maintainable and did not examine maintainability under the SC/ST Act.
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:160059
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7557 of 2023
Applicant :- Praful Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. . And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajal Krishna Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mamta Singh
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
of the mater any apprehension of arrest arises to the applicant, he will be at liberty to take legal recourse as permissible under law.
Order Date :- 9.8.2023 Fhd
Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail application is maintainable when no notice has been issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Whether the applicant faces a genuine apprehension of arrest justifying anticipatory bail under Sections 376, 313, 323, 504, 506 IPC and SC/ST Act
Whether the application remains maintainable where the police has not attempted to arrest the applicant
5 provisions across 4 enactments
Praful Srivastava
State Of U.P.
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
