Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 16064 of 2021 Applicant :- Hirdesh And 2 Other Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record.
2. The instant application is being moved by the applicants invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. that they have every reason to believe that they may be arrested on the accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence in connection with Case Crime No.212 of 2021, under Sections 308, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station-Ganjdundwara, District-Kasganj.
3. From the record, it is evident that the applicants have approached this Court after getting their anticipatory bail rejected from the court of sessions vide order dated 29.7.2021.
4. Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter-XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc.Anticipatory Bail Application u/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020 (Govind Mishra @ Chhotu vs. State of UP), hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned AGA as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (UP Amendment) is not required.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that FIR is delayed with no explanation of the delay. He argued that false allegation has been made against the applicants and the applicants have not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report. It is also submitted that main role of causing injury is assigned to co-accused Ramsanehi.
6. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the application and submitted that in the FIR, the applicants are also assigned role of inflicting injuries by lathi-danda and knife to the injured. Their presence at the place of occurrence is also confirmed in the FIR.
7. Taking into account the severity of allegations, this Court feels that in order to have in-depth probe into the matter, the Investigating Officer of the case should be given fullest liberty to choose its own course for the transparent investigation. Hence, this Court is not inclined to exercise its powers in favour of the applicants, and thus the present anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 6.10.2021 LN Tripathi