Dismissed

Kasim and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2024NABAIL/9249/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application, the High Court refused bail on the grounds that specific provisions under Cr.P.C. Sections 41 and 41-A protect accused persons from arrest for offences punishable up to seven years, rendering anticipatory bail unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail refused as arrest is restricted under Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. for offences punishable up to seven years.

Kasim and Another Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:157028

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9249 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Kasim And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shams Uz Zaman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State, and perused the material on record.

¶7

This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 149 of 2024, under Sections 323, 325, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Saroorpur, District- Meerut.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the instant case. The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. It is next submitted that the investigation is going on and the applicants have apprehension of their arrest in the above mentioned case.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the investigation is pending in the matter. A prima facie case is made out. Referring to the provisions of Section 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. it is submitted that since offences levelled in the first information report are punishable up to seven years only, the applicants cannot be arrested. An apprehension of arrest shown in the anticipatory bail is not genuine. Thus prayer has been made for rejection of anticipatory bail.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

In the matter, it is evident from the record that anticipatory bail has been moved for the offences in which the maximum punishment is seven years. There is a specific provision under Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. on point of arrest of the accused relating to the offences punishable up to seven years. Until and

¶12

unless the mandate given in Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. is complied by the Investigating Officer, accused of such offences cannot be arrested.

¶13

Thus keeping in view the statutory provisions on point of arrest of the accused, the Court is of the opinion that there is no need of anticipatory bail as the applicants cannot be arrested without complying with the provisions given in Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. Specific provisions under Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. have been provided giving protection to the accused persons for arrest of offences punishable up to seven years punishment. Thus, prayer made in the present application is refused.

¶14

With the above observations, the present application stands disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 25.9.2024 SKT/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kasim and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kasim and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases