[email protected] Gayatri And Another vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 1403 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 66
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 464 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- [email protected] Gayatri And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 

Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State.

This application for bail has been filed by applicant Poonam @ Gayatri and another in connection with Case Crime No. 269 of 2016 under Sections 354, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station-Biwar, District- Hamirpur.

At the very outset, learned A.G.A. contends that charge sheet has already been submitted against applicant on 10.10.2016 upon which, cognizance has been taken by Cognizance Taking Order dated 12.9.2018. Resultantly, Case No. 1206 of 2018 (State Vs. [email protected] Gayatri And Another) under Sections 354, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station- Biwar, District Hamirpur came to be registered. Applicant has also been summoned in above mentioned case. However, a period of more than three years have rolled by, applicants have not yet appeared before Court below. As a consequence of aforesaid, the proceedings of above mentioned case remained held up for more than three years. He therefore contends that applicants do not deserve any sympathy of this Court.

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 fails and is liable to be rejected.

It is accordingly rejected.

Order Date :- 25.4.2022

Arshad