Dismissed

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2024ABAIL/310/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the applicant's application for anticipatory bail in an FIR involving allegations under Sections 354, 376, and 506 IPC. The dismissal was based on the corroboration of allegations by statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC. The court directed the trial court to decide regular bail expeditiously if filed within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail refused. Trial court directed to decide regular bail within 15 days if applied for.

Raj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home)… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:16209

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 310 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Raj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Govt. Of U.P. Lucknow And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter, including upto date case diary.

¶8

This application has been moved by the applicant- Raj Kumar for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.0082 of 2023, under Sections 354, 376 and 506 IPC lodged at Police Station Dostpur, district Sultanpur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has taken various grounds in order to show that the FIR of the instant case has been lodged only on account of previous enmity and when the money, which was given to the prosecutrix by the applicant, was demanded back, the informant/victim became annoyed and has lodged the instant FIR.

¶10

Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, submits that the allegations, as levelled in the FIR, have been corroborated by the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC.

¶11

Considering the fact that the allegations in the FIR have been corroborated by the prosecutrix with her statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, I do not find any ground on the basis of which the facility of anticipatory bail may be extended to the applicant.

¶12

In result, the instant anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant- Raj Kumar is dismissed . However, mere rejection of the instant anticipatory bail application of the applicant may not preclude him from approaching the trial Court for the purpose of getting regular bail and, if the applicant appears and moves an appropriate regular bail application within a period of 15 days from today, the trial court shall be under an obligation to decide the same with utmost expedition

¶13

in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 and In Re: To issue certain Guidelines Regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others , MANU/SC/0292/2021.

¶14

Order Date :- 22.2.2024 MVS/-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Govt. of U.P. Lucknow 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

Manorama Devi Thru. Her Husband Chandra Pratap Patel Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Kanhaiyalal Yadav @ Kanhiya Lal Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Pappu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Abhishek Saroj Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Baijnath Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Madan Mohan Yadav @ Madan Mohan @ Dablu and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.