Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10350 of 2021
Applicant :- Pramod Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajeet Kumar
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Shri Arvind Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Ajeet Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
By means of the present anticipatory bail application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. the applicants namely Pramod Kumar and Ashu, who are apprehending their arrest are seeking their anticipatory bail in connection with Case Crime No.64 of 2021, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 354(ka), 380, 447, 452, 457, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Sirsaganj, District Firozabad.
From the record, it is evident that the applicants haved approached this Court straightaway without their anticipatory bail rejected from the Court of Session.
Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of the Court to Clause-7 of Section 438 Cr.P.C. (U.P. Act No.4 of 2019), which read thus :
"(7) If an application under this section has been made by any person to the High Court, no application by the same person shall be entertained by the Court of Session."
After interpreting the aforesaid clause it is clear that the Legislature in its wisdom bestowed two avenues open for the accused. If the accused has chosen to come to the High Court straightaway, then he would not be relegated back to exhaust his remedy before the Court of Session first.
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 Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned
A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants and the informant are distinct relatives of one and same family. There are serious allegations levelled u/s 307 I.P.C. Injury report shows that the injured has sustained seven serious injuries over his person.
Taking into account the allegations against the applicants, the Court feels that in order to have indepth probe into the matter, the Investigating Officer of the case should be given fullest liberty to choose its own course for the transparent investigation. Thus, giving a panoramic view of the matter the 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 :- 30.7.2021
M. Kumar