Dismissed

Arshad @ Chhotu v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2025ABAIL/703/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought under Section 438 CrPC in an Essential Commodities Act case. Court noted unexplained criminal history, held applicant had not come with clean hands, rejected the application but directed expeditious regular bail consideration on surrender with interim protection for two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected; two weeks' interim protection from coercive action and direction for expeditious disposal of regular bail application upon surrender.

Arshad @ Chhotu vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21778

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 703 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Arshad @ Chhotu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Aijaz Ahmad Khan,Raj Kumar Kesari,Shahina Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.257 of 2023, under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, P.S. Sardhana, District Meerut, during, pendency of the trial.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. The whole prosecution story is false and malicious. The charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history. It is next submitted that the applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he 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 applicant is made out. The applicant has six cases of criminal history which has not been explained in the bail application. It is not a case of false implication. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant 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

Considered the argument raised by counsel for the applicant and perused the record. The applicant has not come up with clean hands. No interference is warranted by this Court. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected .

¶13

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.

¶14

However, if the applicant surrenders before the concerned court within two weeks from today and applies 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.

¶15

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 the applicant.

¶16

Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Meenu Singh

¶17

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

Arshad @ Chhotu v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arshad @ Chhotu v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Deepak Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Prashant Shukla vs State of U.P. and Another

Dilawar and 2 Others vs State of U.P.

Kavita Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Faiz Ali vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjeev Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another