Dismissed

Indrajeet v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2024/237/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the applicant sought protection of liberty to attend his son' marriage ceremony. The single bench rejected the application, noting that despite the limited scope of the prayer, the grave nature of the offence involving a father's murder precluded any discretion.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected.

Indrajeet Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:14846

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 237 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Indrajeet Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Kant Dixit,Anand Mani Tripathi,Siddhartha Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

Learned AGA informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including upto date case diary.

¶9

Heard Shri Rama Kant Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

The present anticipatory bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Indrajeet in Case Crime No. 0548 of 2023, under Section 304 IPC Police Station Prayagpur, District Bahraich, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

¶11

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that he is confining his prayer only to the extent that the marriage ceremony of son of the applicant is scheduled to be solemnized on 3,4, & 5 March, 2024 and his liberty be protected till then. Various other submissions have also been raised touching the merits of the case in order to show that it is a false case.

¶12

It is also submitted that the informant of case has also submitted an affidavit before the Superintendent of Police concerned and thus the liberty of the applicant be protected so that he can at least participate in the marriage ceremony.

¶13

Learned AGA on the other hand submits that it is a case where a son has caused the murder of his own father and the allegations of the FIR have been substantiated / corroborated by the medical evidence and thus having regard to the nature of offence the applicant is not entitled for any discretion.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that in the FIR which has been lodged by none other than the brother of the applicant allegations have been levelled that in order to snatch the bank passbook of his father, the instant applicant has assaulted him. The postmortem report of the deceased- Bade Lal Tiwari would reveal that deceased has sustained head injuries as a result of such assault and the cause of death has been ascertained as, due to ante-mortem head injuries. There are witnesses who have stated to have seen the incident and the role of assault has been attributed to the applicant. The oral allegations find corroboration from the medical evidence. Thus having regard to the fact that the applicant is the son of the deceased, I do not find any good ground on the basis of which even the limited request of the applicant to protect his liberty till solemnization of marriage of his son may be accepted.

¶15

In result the instant anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicant is hereby rejected.

¶16

Order Date :- 20.2.2024 Muk

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Indrajeet v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrajeet v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abhishek Saroj Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Baijnath Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Madan Mohan Yadav @ Madan Mohan @ Dablu and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jai Prakash Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Mayank Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mukesh Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Hom Civil Sectt. Lko