Single judge rejected an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC. The court held that the petitioners' plea of alibi is not a ground to be scrutinized for granting bail, leading to rejection of the application.
The application for anticipatory bail is rejected and the matter is disposed of.
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.4409 of 2019
06. 03.01.2020
This application under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. has been made on 27.3.2019 by the petitioners, namely Sri Rakesh Mohan and Sri Rajeev Ranjan apprehending arrest in connection with Lanjigarh P.S. Case No. 14 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 277 of 2019 under Sec. 147/148/302/149 of I.P.C. pending in the court of SDJM, Bhawanipatna.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Standing Counsel.
The FIR was lodged by the wife of the deceased which was registered U/s. 147/148/302/149 of I.P.C. vide Lanjigarh P.S. Case No. 14 of 2019.
The petitioners are named in the FIR and investigation is continuing.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners had left the area in the flight on the previous day and returned on next day of the occurrence. The plea of alibi for the purpose of anticipatory bail is not to be scrutinized and for that, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. As such the bail application stands rejected.
The ABLAPL is disposed of accordingly.
………………………….
Dr.A.K.Mishra, J.
pks
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners apprehending arrest in connection with murder charges.
Whether the plea of alibi is a ground applicable to the grant of anticipatory bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rakesh Mohan
Rajeev Ranjan
Dr.A.K.Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
