Punit Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3327 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 85
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2826 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Punit Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Shams Uz Zaman
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Tiwari
 

 
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant Punit Kumar in connection with Case Crime No. 509 of 2021, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 307, 506 I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Sardhana, district-Meerut.

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case only just to tarnish his image and injure his reputation in the society. He lastly submits that that there is no criminal history against the applicant, hence he is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The applicant has definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant is the husband of the injured and there are prima facie allegations against him. The allegations have not been made to the image and to injure the reputation of the applicant.

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 State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain and Others, (2008) 1 SCC 213 and 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 :- 18.5.2022

Faridul