The court dismissed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC as not pressed by counsel. The applicant was directed to surrender within 60 days for regular bail consideration.
Dismissed. Directed to surrender within 60 days for regular bail consideration.
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:134463
Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7358 of 2024
Applicant :- Gaurav Awasthi @ Gyanendra Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Kumar Singh,Santosh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Learned counsel for applicant states that he does not wants to press this anticipatory bail application.
It is accordingly dismissed as not pressed.
He further prays that the applicant may be granted sometime to obtain bail from the court below.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Gaurav Awasthi @ Gyanendra, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case No. 04/2023, (State Vs. Gunjan Awasthi and others) arising out of case crime no. 111 of 2021, under Section- 306 of IPC, Police StationKotwali Fatehgarh, District- Farrukhabad.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant involve factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under article 226 of Constitution of India. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab,
A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 . However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the petitioners appear and surrender before the court below within 60 days from today and applies for bail/anticipatory bail, their prayer for bail/anticipatory bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
With the aforesaid directions, this anticipatory bail application is finally dismissed.
However, in case, the applicant do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
It is made clear that the applicant will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the court below as directed above.
Order Date :- 21.8.2024 Abhishek
Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the anticipatory bail application should be granted or dismissed?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶11
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab,
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶12
A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶12
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful HaqReferred¶12
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶12
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶12
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Gaurav Awasthi @ Gyanendra
State Of Up
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
