Second anticipatory bail application by a Postal Assistant accused with co-accused of cheating a depositor out of Rs. 5 lakh in a Varanasi Post Office case. Court found the applicant uncooperative with investigation and the allegations serious, refused bail as not a fit case.
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:186158
Court No. - 82
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6765 of 2024
Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pawnesh Tiwari,Pramila Tiwari,Somesh Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. It is also submitted that Process under Section 82 CrPC was issued against the applicant but during the period when he was busy in taking protection by this Court. Co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court.
the investigation and process under Section 82 CrPC has been issued against him.
It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.
Order Date :- 27.11.2024
safi
Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant facing Sections 409 and 420 IPC charges despite prior non-pressed application and Section 82 process against him.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and anotherRelied on¶8
(2020) 5 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sunil Kumar Yadav
State of U.P.
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
5 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
