Dismissed

Khushbu @ Mohit Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2023ABAIL/8912/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application u/s 438 Cr.P.C., the applicant claimed false implication in a case involving grievous injuries. The court rejected the plea due to the seriousness of allegations and the specific role assigned to the applicant, dismissing the application.

What did the court decide?

The application seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

Khushbu @ Mohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:182747

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8912 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Khushbu @ Mohit Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant 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.0140 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 341, 352, 504 and 308 IPC, Police Station Sherkot, District Bijnor.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, in fact, no such incident has taken place. The applicants has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant is a student aged about 30 years. As per version of the FIR, the applicant and other accused persons armed with Lathi and Danda assaulted the son and brother of the informant as a result of which, they have sustained grievous injuries. He further submits that the injured have not disclosed the role as to who cause the injuries. Only common role has been assigned to the applicant. All the offences are punishable below seven years. He further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant/victim vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant and has submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR. Specific role for causing grievous injuries has been assigned to the applicant and other co-accused persons. As per injury report, the injured Faisal Ansari has received six injuries whereas the another injured Furkan has received five injuries. The allegations are very serious and keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, applicant is not entitled

¶10

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.

¶11

In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as mentioned above, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicant as per prosecution case, gravity and nature of accusation, this Court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is made out in favour of applicant.

¶12

Accordingly, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 21.9.2023

¶14

Ajeet

¶15

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

Khushbu @ Mohit Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khushbu @ Mohit Kumar 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

Renuka Lily Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mukhaya Arakshi 308 Ompal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satpal and Another Vs State of U.P.

Kasim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P.

Sagir Ahmad Ansari Vs State of U.P.