Dismissed

Shaukeen v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2024ABAIL/6626/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the court rejected the plea. The applicant had been summoned as an additional accused, challenged the summons, and later absconded after warrants were issued. The applicant was aware of proceedings and did not dispute the process issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C, rendering him ineligible for bail due to hi

What did the court decide?

Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. numbered 6626 of 2024 was rejected on the grounds that the applicant was absconding.

Shaukeen vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:114742

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6626 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shaukeen Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Rai,Gaurav Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

This application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 188 of 2017, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station- Nai Mandi, District- Muzaffar Nagar.

¶7

At the outset, learned A.G.A. submits that the applicant was summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 11.02.2019. The applicant is absconding and is evading the process of law. Process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against him. On that ground, he submits that the applicant is not entitled to enlarged on bail.

¶8

Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The order-sheet of the trial court records that the applicant was summoned as an additional accused vide order dated 11.02.2019. The said order was challenged by the applicant and another by filing Criminal Revision No. 876 of 2019 (Shaukeen and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another) before this Court. The court vide order dated 05.03.2019 stayed the the effect and operation of the order dated 11.02.2019. On account of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 SCC Online 310, the trial court resumed the proceedings. Bailable warrant against the applicant was issued on 01.11.2022. Non-bailable warrant was issued on 09.06.2023 and thereafter process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued on 17.10.2023. The applicant is well aware of the pending proceedings. The issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has also not been disputed by the counsel for the applicant.

¶10

In view, thereof, such conduct of the applicant does not entitle him for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶11

Accordingly, the application is hereby rejected.

¶12

Order Date :- 18.7.2024 Sachin Mishra

¶13

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shaukeen v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaukeen v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Similar cases

Vineet Kumar Alias Vinay Kumar Alias Monu vs State of U.P. and Another

Lotan Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Bind @ Rahul Kumar vs State of U.P.

Sukhvinder Singh Lado and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukesh Sonkar @ Jimmi vs State of Up and Another

Ankit Nishad Alias Nishad Ankit vs State of Up and 4 Others