Ruksar Bano vs State Of U.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 6001 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 89
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11074 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Ruksar Bano
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Kant
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

Heard Mr. Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the applicant, who is available on video link, Mr. Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. assisted by Mr. P.K. Sahai, learned brief holder for the State.

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant in connection with Case Crime No. 0096 of 2021, under Sections 120-B, 115 and 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Phoolpur, District- Allahabad.

Record shows that an FIR dated 15.4.2021 was lodged by first informant-Anjani Kumar Tiwari and was registered as case crime no. 0096 of 2021. In the aforesaid FIR, as many as seven persons namely Sonu urf Siraj, Ruksar Bano, Shanu urf Lamboo, Baba, Adil, Manoj have been nominated as accused and one unknown person has also been named as accused.

At the very outset, learned AGA contends that the name of the present applicant has surfaced in the statement of three of the accused who were arrested together. The statement of the arrested accused is inculpatory in nature and therefore admissible in evidence.

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that except for the present applicant all other named accused are in custody.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material brought on record as well as complicity of accused and also judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the present application for anticipatory bail is rejected.

Order Date :- 3.6.2021

SA