Disposed¶7

Shashikant Tripathi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2025ABAIL/11638/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (single judge: Vivek Varma, J.) — anticipatory bail under S. 438 Cr.P.C. refused/disposed of on the ground that Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. govern arrest for offences punishable up to seven years and bar arrest unless complied with by the Investigating Officer. FIR: Case Crime No. 202 of 2017, Sections 406, 420, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Harvansh Mohal, District Kanpur Nagar. Applicant Shashikant Tripathi; opposite party State of U.P. (AGA V.P. Tripathi; counsel for applicant Sonal Bharti). Decision dated 20.3.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:41256. No case-law citations; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

No relief; the prayer for anticipatory bail was refused and, with the above observations, the present application stands disposed of. ¶7

Shashikant Tripathi Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41256

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11638 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shashikant Tripathi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sonal Bharti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Sonal Bharti, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned AGA for the State, and perused the material on record.

¶7

This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 202 of 2017, under Sections 406, 420, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Harvansh Mohal, District- Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. 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.

¶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 Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. it is submitted that since the 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.

¶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 the 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 applicant 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 :- 20.3.2025 SKT/-

¶16

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

Shashikant Tripathi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikant Tripathi 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases