Disposed¶13

Rijvan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2025ABAIL/10127/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail refused (counsel did not press relief); applicant to surrender within two weeks and apply for regular bail; courts below to decide expeditiously per Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2021 SCC Online SC 922); no coercive action during interim period; underlying offences Sections 406, 504, 506 IPC; Case Crime No.108 of 2019; Police Station Chowk; District Maharajganj; Allahabad High Court; Justice Deepak Verma; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:15420.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail refused; instead, applicant granted interim protection — no coercive action for two weeks or till surrender (whichever earlier) — and courts below directed to decide his regular bail application expeditiously, per law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, if he surrenders and applies within two weeks. ¶13

Rijvan vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Rijvan should be released on anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in respect of Criminal Case No.7 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No.108 of 2019. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

As counsel for the applicant did not press the relief on merit, the relief of anticipatory bail sought through the application is refused.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

If the applicant surrenders before the concerned court below within two weeks and applies for regular bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.

¶11

Key takeaways

For two weeks from the order or until the applicant's surrender before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad H.C. (Court No. 70), Order dated 4.2.2025 — Deepak Verma, J.: Anticipatory bail application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. 10127 of 2024 by applicant Rijvan, concerning Criminal Case No.7 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No.108 of 2019 (Section 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Chowk, District Maharajganj), disposed of without adjudication on merits: counsel declined to press the relief, which was accordingly refused; applicant directed to surrender within two weeks and apply for regular bail, which the courts below must decide expeditiously in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2021 SCC Online SC 922); interim protection — no coercive action for two weeks or till surrender, whichever is earlier.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:15420

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10127 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rijvan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Kamlesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Criminal Case No.7 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No.108 of 2019, under Section 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police StationChowk, District- Maharajganj.

¶8

On the matter being taken up, learned counsel for the applicant has not pressed the relief as sought by means of this application on merit and prayed for issuance of appropriate direction to the concerned Courts below to decide the bail application of the applicant expeditiously.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has no objection in allowing the aforesaid prayer of the applicant.

¶10

Accordingly the relief as sought by the applicant through this application is refused.

¶11

Considering the aforesaid alternative prayer of the applicant, it is directed that if applicant surrenders before the concerned Court below within two weeks from today and applies for regular bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

¶12

For the period of two weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶13

With the aforesaid directions, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 4.2.2025

¶15

Nitin Verma

¶16

Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rijvan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rijvan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jaiveer vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok & Another vs State of U.P and Another

Dilip vs State of U.P.

Shazid vs State of U.P.

Vikas Sharma vs State of U.P.

Raju Seth vs State of U.P.