Applicant sought anticipatory bail in an FIR under Sections 420/406/504/506/34 IPC. The A.G.A. argued no arrest apprehension arose given seven-year maximum punishment. Relying on Satender Kumar Antil, the court declined to entertain the application, rejected it, and permitted a regular bail application.
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-LKO:51334
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1666 of 2024
Applicant :- Rajpati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
1.Vakalatnama filed by Shri Vijayendra Prakash, Advocate on behalf of the complainant is taken on record.
strictly in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra).
Order Date :- 29.7.2024 Madhu
Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable where offences are punishable up to seven years and arrest apprehension is doubtful per Satender Kumar Antil.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherRelied on¶5
Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No.5191 of 2021
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajpati
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.
Another
Karunesh Singh Pawar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
