SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ajeet Pratap vs State Of U.P. on 12 January, 2024

Allahabad High Court

Ajeet Pratap vs State Of U.P. on 12 January, 2024

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Neutral Citation No. – 2024:AHC:6177

Court No. – 75

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. – 14227 of 2023

Applicant :- Ajeet Pratap

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilendra Yadav,Ajun Sahu

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Akhilendra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. This is the second anticipatory bail application of the applicant. The first one was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 04.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.6088 of 2023 in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825..

4. The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for anticipatory bail in Case No.28126 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.91 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad, during the pendency of trial.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant could not bring to light any new ground for pressing the instant anticipatory bail application. The applicant is the main accused person as he is the husband of the deceased person.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and also taking into consideration the fact that no new ground is there for pressing the instant anticipatory bail application, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

8. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected.

9. 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.

Order Date :- 12.1.2024

Ravi Kant

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation