Dismissed

Gulam Rasool v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2024ABAIL/2372/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court held that the applicant's name appearing in a co-accused's confession, alongside seized evidence, established prima facie complicity, making bail untenable at that stage.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail refused; liberty granted to file regular bail application within two weeks for expeditious disposal.

Gulam Rasool vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:84231

¶2

Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2372 of 2024 Applicant :- Gulam Rasool Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Naveen Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for State.

¶5

Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

¶6

The present application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.115 of 2024 under sections 429 I.P.C., 3/5/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughters Act, P.S. Itiyathok, district Gonda.

¶7

Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated. His name has surfaced in confessional statement of the co-accused who was arrested from the spot. No FSL report has been obtained by the investigating officer to ascertain that the alleged recovered meat is of cow progeny.

¶8

On due consideration to the fact that the police party on the basis of information has caught three accused persons on the spot along with 36 Kg raw meat as well as other organs of cow progeny, axe, knife etc, from the confessional of the co-accused persons, name of the applicant has surfaced, it is not a case of false implication and thus, the complicity of the applicant is prima facie evident. No case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶9

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he may be granted liberty to file regular bail application and the same may be decided in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another Special Leave to Appeal (Cri)No.5191 of 2021.

¶10

In view of the above, prayer for anticipatory bail is refused and the application is dismissed. However, it is provided that in case the applicant files a regular bail application within two weeks from today, the same be decided expeditiously, strictly in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) .

¶11

Order Date :- 13.12.2024/R.C.

¶12

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gulam Rasool v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulam Rasool v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Azad Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Mukesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj, Lko. and 5 Others

Vineet Patel @ Vineet Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ram Narayan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ranjeet vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Manoj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko