Arif Steno And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 6008 ALL

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 6008 ALL
Judgement Date : 3 June, 2021

Allahabad High Court

Arif Steno And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 June, 2021

Bench: Rajeev Misra




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 89
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11070 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Arif Steno And 4 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Tiwari,Harbansh Prasad Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dr. C.P. Upadhyay
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel for applicants, who is available on video link, Mr. Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. assisted by Mr. P.K. Sahi, learned brief-holder for State and Dr. C.P. Upadhyay, learned counsel for informant, who is also available on video link.

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicants- Arif Steno and 4 Others in connection with Case Crime No.138 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 307 I.P.C., Police Station- Ghoorpur, District- Prayagraj.

At the very outset, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for informant have submitted that in the incident which is alleged to have occurred on 15.04.2021, four persons have received injuries. Out of which, some of them have received gun-shot injuries. However, applicants have not appended the injury reports of the injured, nor any explanation has been offered as to how the injuries have been sustained by injured. On the aforesaid premise, it is urged that present application for anticipatory bail is liable to be dismissed.

When confronted with aforesaid, learned counsel for applicants could not overcome the same.

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 Apex Court in 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

Saif