In this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court rejected the applicant's plea for anticipatory bail. The Court held that the allegations were serious and the apprehension of arrest was not founded on material on record.
Prayer for anticipatory bail refused; Application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:192465
Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10270 of 2024
Applicant :- Smt. Sunita Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Tripathi,Praveen Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There are no previous criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
Order Date :- 9.12.2024 Krishna*
Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail to an accused apprehending arrest in a case involving serious injuries and collective violence.
Whether the apprehension of arrest is founded on material on record or merely on imaginary fear.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Sunita Devi
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
