Yusuf v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court rejected the application for anticipatory bail, holding that arrest cannot occur without compliance with Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. for offences punishable up to seven years.
What did the court decide?
Application for anticipatory bail refused as arrest requires compliance with Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C.
What the court decided
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:157056
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9263 of 2024
Applicant :- Yusuf Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manu Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
- Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State, and perused the material on record.
- This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 90 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 354A I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Aligarh.
- Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. A vague and general role of assault has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is next submitted that the investigation is going on and the applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case.
- 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 applicant 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.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail is required when offences punishable up to seven years are involved.
Whether the mandate of Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. regarding arrest of such offences is complied with.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Yusuf
Coram
Vivek Varma
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · September
- Registered
- Case no.
- NABAIL/9263/2024
All orders in this case
2 orders share this CNR
- Order 1 — this page
- Order 2 · Vivek Varma
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court