Vijay v. State of U.P. and Another
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad considered an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by Vijay, who faced charges of rape and related offences. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court refused bail, holding that the nature and gravity of the offence and the applicant's role made it unfit for a grant. The appeal against the bail rejection was dismissed.
What did the court decide?
Anticipatory bail application is refused as the case is not a fit case due to the nature of the offence.
What the court decided
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:193593
Court No. - 82
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10061 of 2024
Applicant :- Vijay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Sharan Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
- Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
- The present application for anticipatory bail after submission of the charge-sheet has been moved by the applicant - Vijay , who has been summoned to face trial by the learned Magistrate in Case Crime No.475 of 2019, under Sections 328, 342, 366, 376-D, 120B IPC, Police Station Iglas, District Aligarh. Application for anticipatory bail moved by the present accused-applicant has been rejected by the learned Session Judge, Aligarh vide order dated 19.9.2024.
- Learned counsel for the applicant submits that that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He has been falsely implicated in this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that albeit an F.I.R. was lodged against three named accused persons Madhu, Vijay and Arjun under Sections 376-D, 342, 328 IPC and the present applicant had been cooperative with the investigation of this case but after investigation, the name of present applicant alongwith the co-accused Madhu was exonerated by the I.O. of this case and the charge-sheet was submitted only against co-accused Arjun, but the learned Magistrate at the time of taking cognizance, summoned the present applicant to face trial under Sections 328, 342, 366, 376-D, 120-B IPC alongwith accused Arjun and co-accused Madhu whereas he had no power to summon the additional accused at the time of taking cognizance of the matter in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions. It is further submitted that the present applicant and co-accused Madhu also moved discharge application before the Court which was rejected in an arbitrary manner by the Magistrate vide order dated
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail given the seriousness of the offence under Section 376-D IPC.
Whether the applicant has a credible case of false implication warranting anticipatory bail despite existing summons.
Whether the established principles of anticipatory bail apply in light of the nature of accusations and prior rejected applications.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Vijay
Coram
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · December
- Registered
- Case no.
- ABAIL/10061/2024
All orders in this case
3 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court