In the fourth application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a FIR registered under various sections of the IPC and Arms Act, the court declined to reconsider the matter and dismissed the application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ABLAPL No.431 of 2020
03. 20.02.2020
This is the fourth journey of the petitioners, who have been implicated in Pipili P.S. Case No.323 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.568 of 2018 registered for alleged commission of offence under sections 147/148/341/323/325/294/379/506/149 of the IPC read with section 25/27 of the Arms Act pending in the court of the learned J.M.F.C., Pipili in filing this application under section 438 Cr.P.C., has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel and on going through the earlier orders, I am not inclined to reconsider the matter of grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Accordingly, the ABLAPL is dismissed.
D. Dash, J.
Basu
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioners in a second proceedings under IPC and Arms Act?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Petitioners
State
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
