Dismissed

Anshu Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2024ABAIL/11917/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment rejects the second anticipatory bail application filed by Anshu Singh. The court held that the application lacked new grounds and amounted to forum shopping, given the applicant’s prior criminal history and a previous rejection for failure to explain antecedents. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application is rejected as devoid of merits and amounting to forum shopping.

Anshu Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:195441

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11917 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Anshu Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nishad Ramjanki,Sabhajeet,Upasana Rajpoot Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Sabhajeet, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0677 of 2021, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 and 120B I.P.C., Police Station Kairana, District Samli, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

This is the second anticipatory bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.03.2024.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the said order was not on merits rather the earlier anticipatory bail application was rejected as the applicant could not explain his criminal antecedents in Case Crime No.55 of 2021 and the applicant has been enlarged on bail in the said case and he has annexed the said order as Annexure No.15 to the affidavit accompanying the anticipatory bail application, as such, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in the instant case.

¶11

There is no new ground except the fact that he has explained the criminal antecedents. The instant second anticipatory bail application tentamounts to forum shopping, as such, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail also on the ground that he has criminal history of four more cases in addition to the instant case, as such, the parameters of Section 438 Cr.P.C. do not apply to the case of the applicant.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application.

¶13

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and also taking into consideration the fact that no new ground is there for pressing the instant anticipatory bail application, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶14

The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected .

¶15

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶16

Order Date :- 13.12.2024 Ravi/-

¶17

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anshu Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anshu Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Ankit Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lucknow

Mohd. Salman vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Santosh Gupta @ Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Dalveer Singh vs State of U.P.

Nikki Rai Alias Nikki Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Pal vs State of U.P.