Amar Singh vs State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 19326 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Amar Singh vs State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry ... on 27 May, 2024

Author: Pankaj Bhatia

Bench: Pankaj Bhatia

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40429
 
Court No. - 12
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1177 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Amar Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Home Affairs Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Singh,Sakshi Singh,Sameer Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

2. The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in FIR No.400 of 2022 under sections 323, 307 and 427 IPC, P.S. Gosaiganj, District Lucknow.

3. In terms of the FIR, allegations were levelled against as many as four persons and some unknown person of causing the offence under sections 323, 307, 427, 341, 147, 148, 149 IPC. Subsequently, the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant under sections 323, 307, 427 IPC.

4. In the said backdrop, the counsel for the applicant argues that in view of the law laid down in the case of Aman Preet Singh vs. CBI; 2022 (3) SCC 764, no useful purpose would be served in taking the applicant in custody merely because the charge-sheet has been filed. He further argues that there is no evidence whatsoever against the applicant to link him with the offence under section 307 IPC, even as per the statement of the victim, the role of pushing was assigned to the applicant and nothing more.

5. Considering the said submissions, prima-facie the benefit as claimed by the applicant by virtue of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Aman Preet Singh (Supra) would be available to the applicant to be argued while applying for regular bail. This court cannot go into the sufficiency of the evidence at this stage.

6. Considering the nature of allegations and the fact that the charge-sheet prima-facie found the complicity of the applicant in the said three sections, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

7. The application for anticipatory bail is rejected.

8. However, the applicant would be at liberty to apply for regular bail which shall be considered and decided in terms of the law laid down in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. CBI 2021 (10) SCC 773 as well as in the case of Aman Preet Singh (Supra).

Order Date :- 27.5.2024

VNP/-