Lalu @ Arun Kumar @ Arun Rawat vs State Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 20081 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 11
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 364 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Lalu @ Arun Kumar @ Arun Rawat
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lko.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Priyanka Jaiswal,Prem Narayan Sharma,Sunil Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

Case called out in revised list. None appears on behalf of the applicant to press this application whereas learned AGA for the State is present.

Perusal of the order-sheet shows that the matter is pending since 08.03.2022 whereas as per sub-Section (5) of Section 438 Cr.P.C. of the State Amendment vide U.P. Act No. 4 of 2019, anticipatory bail application under sub-Section (1) of Section 438 Cr.P.C. has to be decided within 30 days.

In view of the above, I proceed to decide this case on its merit.

This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant after rejecting his anticipatory bail application by the order dated 24.02.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow, seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 810 of 2021, under Section 304 IPC, Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow.

As per prosecution case, informant Khushboo lodged the first information report on 24.10.2021 with regard to an incident which took place on 23.10.2021 against four named accused persons, namely, Rahul, Lalu (present applicant), Manoj and Vinod for the offence under Section 304 IPC making allegation against them that on 23.10.2021, her husband was badly beaten by the accused persons whereby he succumbed to injuries.

Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant by contending that investigating officer after due investigation submitted charge sheet dated 06.04.2022 in this case on the basis of cogent material against the applicant, therefore, as on date cognizable offence is made out against the applicant and it cannot be presumed that he has been falsely implicated.

Upon perusal of material brought on record as well as complicity of accused-applicant 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. in favour of the applicant.

Accordingly, the instant application for anticipatory bail is rejected.

Order Date :- 6.12.2022

Shubham