Dismissed

Lalit Kant Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Home, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC1 Jul 2024/1378/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a murder case (ICS 302) was rejected. The court held that the Uttar Pradesh amendment prohibits bail in death-worthy offences, distinguishing it from the petitioner's cited precedent.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected. Applicant directed to surrender before the trial court within fifteen days.

Lalit Kant Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:44655

¶2

Court No. - 32

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1378 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Lalit Kant Pandey

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Home, Lucknow And Others

¶6

Counsel for Applicant :- Asim Kumar Singh,Chandra Bhushan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.

¶8

Heard Sri C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajdeep Singh, learned AGA-I.

¶9

The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in FIR No.139 of 2021, (Criminal Case No.57540), under Sections 302, 323, 364 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Aliganj, District Lucknow North (Lucknow Commissionerate).

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that applicant is ready to surrender before the trial court and he may be protected by this Court by giving reasonable time.

¶11

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Nathu Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2021) 6 SCC 64.

¶12

On the other hand, Sri Rajdeep Singh, learned AGA-I has pointed out the provision of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and the amendment of the State of Uttar Pradesh vide Act No.2 of 1974. He has referred to sub-section (6) of Section 438

¶13

Cr.P.C., which clearly prohibits that the provisions of this Section shall not be applicable in the offences, in which death sentence can be awarded. Admittedly, it is a case of murder and Section 302 IPC is invoked, in which the death sentence can be awarded. He, therefore, submits that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case for granting anticipatory bail.

¶14

After hearing counsel for both the parties, I am of the view that in view of the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 438 Cr.P.C. of State Amendment Act of Uttar Pradesh, the anticipatory bail cannot be granted. Apart from it, the judgement referred by the learned counsel for the applicant in the case of Nathu Singh (supra) will not be applicable in the present case because in the aforesaid case Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC read with Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act were invoked, whereas in the present case, the offence is pertaining to Section 302 IPC, where death penalty can be awarded.

¶15

Anticipatory bail application is accordingly rejected.

¶16

This Court declines to grant any relief. However, the applicant may surrender before the trial court within fifteen days from today, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶17

(Brij Raj Singh, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 1.7.2024

¶19

Rao/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lalit Kant Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Home, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Kant Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Home, Lucknow and 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

Ravi @ Ram Bujharat and Another vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Vaseem Alias Shahrukh Alias Taju and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Abul Hasan and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mata Bux Singh vs State of U.P. Thru.Its Addl. Chief Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. and 4 Others

Taj Mohammad @ Aas Mohammad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Ajay Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another