SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shameem Ahmad vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 July, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 67

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. – 8907 of 2021

Applicant :- Shameem Ahmad

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- A.Z.Khan

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

The instant application is being moved by the applicant namely, Shameem Ahmad invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime no.0060 of 2021, under Sections 354 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Gadhiya Rangeen, District-Shahjahanpur.

From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court straightway without getting his anticipatory bail rejected from the court below.

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court to Clause-7 of Section 438 Cr.P.C. (U.P. Act No.4 of 2021), 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 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Vs. State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned AGA as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P.Amendment) is not required.

Learned A.G.A has submitted that the FIR was got registered by Smt. Heena Devi, the informant of the present case against the applicant. The applicant is named in the FIR. Taking into account the allegations made in the FIR and the age of the victim as well as her 164 Cr.P.C. statement, the applicant deserves no relaxation.

The Court feels that in order to have in-depth probe into the matter, custodial interrogation is imperative. Learned A.G.A submits that instant case is not the case of false implication.

Thus, giving a panoramic view of the matter, the Court is not inclined to exercise its powers in favour of the applicant, and thus the present anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected.

Order Date :- 16.7.2021

Sumit S

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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