In a criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application, the High Court refused bail to an applicant accused of rape. The court held that the applicant, having been declared a proclaimed offender for evading summons and warrants, was not entitled to relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
The anticipatory bail application was rejected.
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:168036
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9374 of 2023
Applicant :- Anand @ Aanshu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajai Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation. It is further submitted that the applicant has been cooperative during the course of investigation and now after filing of the charge-sheet, no custodial interrogation is required in the matter. If the applicant is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and will cooperate in the trial. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest by the police any time.
"19. Despite the above observations on merits and despite the fact that it was brought to the notice of the High Court that respondent No. 2 - accused is absconding and even the proceedings under sections 82-83 of Cr. P.C. have been initiated as far as back on 10.01.2019, the High Court has just ignored the aforesaid relevant aspects and has granted anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2 - accused by observing that the nature of accusation is arising out of a business transaction. The specific allegations of cheating, etc., which came to be considered by learned Additional Sessions Judge has not at all been considered by the High Court. Even the High Court has just ignored the factum of initiation of proceedings under sections 82-83 of Cr. P.C. by simply observing that "be that as it may". The aforesaid relevant aspect on grant of anticipatory bail ought not to have been ignored by the High Court and ought to have been considered by the High Court very seriously and not casually.
as a proclaimed absconder by willfully avoiding the process of the Court, he is not entitled for the benefit of the anticipatory bail in the light of the law laid down in Prem Shankar Prasad case (supra).
Order Date :- 21.8.2023 safi
Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an applicant declared as a proclaimed offender and absconder despite summons warrants is entitled to anticipatory bail.
Whether the applicant's refusal to cooperate with investigation and multiple prior rejections of bail applications preclude relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prem Shankar Prasad Versus State of Bihar and AnotherApplied¶14
Prem Shankar Prasad Versus State of Bihar and Another, 2021 SCC OnLine Supreme Court 955 · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep SharmaApplied¶16
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Anand @ Aanshu
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
