Khem Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2165 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 66
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3504 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Khem Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi,Saurabh Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Faiz Ahmad
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

Heard Mr. Dhirendra Bahadur Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Faiz Ahmad, learned counsel for first informant.

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Khem Singh in connection with Case Crime No.12061 of 2021, under Sections 323, 377, 354(A) I.P.C. & Sections 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station- Dhoomanganj, District- Allahabad.

At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant contends that criminal misc. anticipatory bail application filed by co-accused Santosh Kumar Singh has already been rejected by this Bench vide its order dated 05.03.2022. For ready reference, same is reproduced hereinunder:-

"Heard Mr. Kamlesh Shrama, learned counsel for applicant, learned AGA for State and Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant.

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant in connection with Case Crime No.1206 of 2021, under Sections 323, 377, 354(A) IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad.

Perused the record.

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 CrPC.

Accordingly, the present application for anticipatory bail is rejected."

On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for first informant contends that case of present applicant is similar and identical to aforementioned co-accused. As such, present application for anticipatory bail is also liable to be rejected.

When confronted with above, learned counsel for applicant could not over come the same.

In view of above, this application for anticipatory bail fails and it is liable to be rejected.

It is accordingly rejected.

Order Date :- 6.5.2022

Zafar