Rishipal Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 2284 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 66
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3850 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Rishipal Singh And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Nitinjay Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

Heard Mr. Nitinjay Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

Perused the record.

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Rishipal Singh and Kapil Kumar in connection with Case Crime No.57 of 2022, under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and sections 9/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Dilari, District- Moradabad.

Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 18.03.2022, a delayed F.I.R. dated 19.03.2022 was lodged by first informant- Raj Kumar and was registered as Case Crime No.57 of 2022, under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Dilari, District- Moradabad. In the aforesaid F.I.R., three persons, namely, Dushyant, Rishi Pal and Kapil have been nominated as named accused.

At the very outset, learned A.G.A. contends that in respect of the same incident, there is a cross F.I.R. lodged by first informant Mahipal Singh dated 18.03.2022 and registered as Case Crime No.58 of 2022, under Sections 506, 504, 336, 324, 323 I.P.C., Police Station- Dilari, District- Moradabad. In the aforesaid F.I.R., three persons, namely, Rahul, Puneet and Kavendra have been nominated as named accused.

On the aforesaid premise, learned A.G.A. contends that in view of the cross version of the occurrence giving rise to this application for anticipatory bail, the occurrence is admitted to the parties. Various persons sustained injuries from both sides. He, therefore, contends that no indulgence be extended by this Court in favour of applicants.

When confronted with above, 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 :- 7.5.2022

Saif