Dismissed

Durgesh Dixit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. and 2 Others.

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2024/1247/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under S. 438 CrPC rejected by the Allahabad High Court. The court held that since offences were punishable up to seven years, there was no apprehension of arrest, making anticipatory bail not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail rejected; liberty granted to file regular bail application within 15 days before the trial court.

Durgesh Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:54042

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1247 of 2024 Applicant :- Durgesh Dixit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. And 2 Others. Counsel for Applicant :- Jyoti Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the respondent State as well as Shri Niraj Singh, learned Advocate who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant is take on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in FIR/case crime No. 882/2021, under Sections 419/420/406 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Unnao.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. for the respondent State has raised preliminary objection that the offences are punishable up to seven years, therefore, it cannot be presumed that there is any apprehension of arrest of the applicant. In view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No.5191 of 2021" the applicant can very well appear and surrender before the trial court and shall be enlarged on bail without being taken into custody. The anticipatory bail is not maintainable as there is no apprehension of arrest.

¶8

In view of submissions made by the learned A.G.A. so also considering the law laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil, I am not inclined to entertain the anticipatory bail application, hence, the application is rejected. However, liberty is granted to the applicant to file a regular bail application before the learned trial court, which, if filed within a period of 15 days from today, shall be considered and decided strictly in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

¶9

Order Date :- 6.8.2024/R.C.

¶10

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Durgesh Dixit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. and 2 Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durgesh Dixit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. and 2 Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Shamim Ahmed @ Mohd. Samim Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dalbag Singh @ Dilbag Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Rameshwar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Puneet Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and 3 Others

Mitthan @ Mohammad Mitthan Miyan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another