Dismissed

Adanan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2023ABAIL/9112/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The Bench held that the seriousness of allegations and pendency of co-accuseds bail applications precluded exercise of discretion. Regular bail may be considered upon surrender.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; applicant directed to surrender and apply for regular bail.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:179195

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9112 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Adanan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bir Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Dubey

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Chandra Bir Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.172 of 2023, under Sections 342, 386 and 506 IPC, Police Station Bhrampuri, District Meerut.

¶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 incident is alleged to have taken place on 30.05.2023 at about 17 hours whereas the impugned FIR has been lodged on 31.05.2023 at about 20 hours i.e. after about 1 days of the incident, which itself creates serious aspersion and an element of doubt over the prosecution story. The opposite party no.2 has named the applicant as one of the accused due to the fact that the applicant is one of the person who was helping the co-accused Soniya to lodge an FIR against the opposite party no.2, who alongwith his one friend forcefully raped her. The applicant has not taken any money from the informant as the informant has made allegation that he has paid money to the applicant. He further submits that the entire allegation made by the opposite party no.2 are false, concocted, baseless and scandalous and the same have been levelled only to create pressure upon him not to help Soniya. He further submits that neither the applicant nor Soniya has committed any offene and criminal misappropriation as alleged in the FIR.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is

¶10

released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant and has prayed for rejection of the same by submitting that similarly placed co-accused, namely, Naushad and Sharfaraz, who were arrested and applied for regular bail before this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.29608 and 35075 of 2023, which are still pending before this Court. Earlier the applicant and one another co-accused persons have also approached this Court filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.9297 of 2023 and a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.06.2023 dismissed the same. Further submission is that the allegations are very serious and keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, applicant 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

However considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrender before the court below and seeks grant of regular bail, his application shall be heard and decided in accordance with law.

¶15

Order Date :- 18.9.2023 Ajeet

¶16

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

Adanan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adanan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Pushpa Devi Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sagar Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P.

Jouli Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdul Quadir Vs State of U.P.

Madan @ Rajendra Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.