Dismissed

Raju and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2025ABAIL/4885/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. holding it was not a fit case for grant, as allegations prima facie made out offence. A stay against coercive action for two weeks or until surrender was granted.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action shall be taken against the applicants for the period of two weeks from today or till the time of surrender, whichever is earlier.

Raju and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12319

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4885 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Raju And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dhananjay Singh Yadav,G.A.,Pramod Kumar Gupta

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicants for enlarging them on bail in Case Crime No.98 of 2024, under Sections 452, 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Nagina, District Bijnor, during pendency of trial.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive; the statement of the injured and other witnesses are not supporting the prosecution case. The whole prosecution story is false and malicious. It is next submitted that the applicants' case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the applicants are apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that prima facie offence against the applicants is made out. The charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants. The injured has received injury. It is not a case of false implication. The prosecution is supported by medical examination report. The applicants are not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants may be rejected.

¶10

In Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2018) 13 SCC 813 , the Supreme Court has held that the satisfaction of the court for granting protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is different from the

¶11

one under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while considering regular bail. In Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana and another (2023) 8 SCC 181 , the Apex Court has opined that 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 protecting public interest.

¶12

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the arguments tendered at bar pertain to regular bail application and cannot be agitated at the stage of 438 Cr.P.C., I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶13

The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected .

¶14

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶15

However, if the applicants surrender before the concerned court within two weeks from today and apply for regular bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Meenu Singh

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raju and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju and 3 Others 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases