Ramesh Dudhiya And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3328 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 85
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3257 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Ramesh Dudhiya And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Som Veer
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

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

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicants Ramesh Dudhiya and Kunwarpal in connection with Case Crime No. 81 of 2022, under sections 395, 397, 332, 353, 504 I.P.C. and section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Linepar, district-Firozabad.

As per prosecution case when the informant was on patrolling duty with some other constables he received an information on his mobile phone that in-laws of her pregnant sister are committing maar-peet with her. The informant immediately reached at the place of occurrence and tried to pacify the in-laws of her sister but they and some villagers have also committed maar-peet with him and other police personal.

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

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

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