Allowed

Pankaj Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC14 Mar 2024/1313/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC, the court heard the case on merits despite the applicant's absence. The court accepted the State's submission that there was no misusage of bail and offences were bailable, confirming the previous order dated 10.02.2021 and granting bail.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 10.02.2021 confirmed and anticipatory bail application disposed of granting bail.

Pankaj Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:22684

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1313 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Pankaj Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Navneet Kumar Mishra,S.K. Sikarwar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manish Kumar Yadav,Vijay Kumar Asthana

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

On 07.03.2024, the following order was passed:-

¶7

"Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the applicant to press this application.

¶8

In the interest of justice, the case is adjourned today.

¶9

List/ put up this case on 14.03.2024.

¶10

It is made clear that the case would not be adjourned on the next date of listing and appropriate order would be passed in first call even in absence of applicant's counsel."

¶11

Today, when the case was called out, no one appeared on behalf of the applicant to press the present bail application. However, learned A.G.A. for the State is present. In these circumstances, this Court proceeded to hear the case on merits.

¶12

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.421 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 377 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station- Mandiyaon, District- Lucknow with a prayer to grant him bail.

¶13

On being asked, learned A.G.A. for the State, based upon the instructions received stated that the instruction does not say that the applicant has misused the liberty granted by this Court or he failed to co-operate during the investigation. He further submitted that charge-sheet has already been filed in the sections which are bailable.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid submission as also that the applicant has not misused the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 10.02.2021 and that the charge sheet has already been filed before the court concerned and the offence/sections indicated in the charge sheet are bailable and also that the applicant has not misused the liberty granted by this Court vide

¶15

order dated 10.02.2021 and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the order dated 10.02.2021 is hereby confirmed .

¶16

The present application is disposed of accordingly.

¶17

Order Date :- 14.3.2024 (Manoj K.)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pankaj Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Ram Bahal and Others Vs Asstt. Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and Others

Ganga Ram Vs Tehsildar Judicial, Tehsil Utrayla, Balrampur and Others

Ghanshyam and 2 Others Vs Up Zila Adhikari Kunda Distt. Pratapgarh and 6 Others

Mohd. Yaqoob Vs D.D.C.Barabanki and Others

Om Prakash and Another Vs Addl. Sub Divisional Officer Mandal Ayodhya Tahsil Sadar Dist. Ayodhya and 15 Others

Atma Ram Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others