Applicant sought anticipatory bail for allegedly sending an imposter to a public recruitment examination; co-accused's name surfaced via confession. Court held allegations grave, no false implication or exceptional circumstances shown, and dismissed the application.
None granted; anticipatory bail application rejected.
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:139850
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7714 of 2024
Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghubir Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
" 6. The concept of anticipatory bail came to be part of the criminal law landscape via the 41st Report of the Law Commission which recommended the inclusion of such a provision, which then stood incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Over the years, many judgments of this Court have considered that a Court must weigh while considering an application for anticipatory bail. In Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla v. Anita Agarwal & Ors1 ., a three-Judge Bench laid down the following factors : "17. The facts which must be borne in mind while considering an application for the grant of anticipatory bail have been elucidated in the decision of this Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] and several other decisions. The factors to be considered include : (SCC pp. 736-37, paras 112-13) "112.
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice;
(iv) the likelihood of the accused repeating similar or other offences;
(v) whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting them;
(vi) the impact of the grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people; (2021) 15 SCC 777
(vii) the courts must carefully evaluate the entire material against the accused. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in such cases is a matter of common
knowledge and concern;
(viii) while considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
(ix) the reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(x) frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail. "
" 19. The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and rotecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome. "
offence is made out, the accused is required to show exceptional circumstances warranting the protection of liberty. No circumstances have been shown by applicant to demonstrate that personal liberty of accused in the facts and circumstances of the case is required to be protected. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the grant of anticipatory bail would lead to miscarriage of justice.
jurisdiction. No extraordinary circumstances have been shown by applicant that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would lead to injustice. Even otherwise, the applicant has failed to demonstrate factors which would entitle the applicant for anticipatory bail.
Order Date :- 30.8.2024 VMA
Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to an applicant alleged to have sent an imposter to sit a public recruitment examination in his place.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sabita Paul v. State of West BengalApplied
2024 INSC 245 · Who else cites this
Shrikant Upadhyay and others Vs State of Bihar and anotherRelied on
2024 INSC 202 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ajay Kumar
Vikram D. Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
