Allahabad High Court
Ravi Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 October, 2022
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7660 of 2022 Applicant :- Ravi Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sundeep Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Yogendra Pal Singh Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case No.2796/2020, arising out of Case Crime No.80/2019, under Sections 498-A/323/504/506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Meerut with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Learned counsel submitted that applicant is husband of complainant and their marriage has taken place in the year 2015. The allegations made against applicant, are thoroughly false. It is further submitted that earlier applicant has applied for regular bail under Section 439 CrPC, wherein, he was granted interim bail but meanwhile applicant was admitted in Drug De-Addiction Centre and thus, he could not appear before the court below and due to this reason, the court below has issued warrants against applicant. Learned counsel submitted that applicant has not deliberately violated the conditions of interim bail, rather it was on medical ground that applicant has to be admitted in Drug De-Addiction Centre. It was submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail he would co-operate during investigation and trial and would obey the conditions of bail.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that once the applicant has invoked the jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC and he was granted interim bail by the court below, thus, now this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC is not maintainable. It was submitted that applicant has misused the liberty of interim bail granted to him by the court below.
From the facts of the matter, it appears that earlier applicant has filed an application under Section 439 CrPC seeking regular bail, wherein, he was granted interim bail by the court below but applicant has not appeared on the date fixed before the court below and thus, non-bailable warrants were issued against him. Once the applicant has submitted himself to the jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC and he was granted interim regular bail, the instant application for anticipatory bail in continuation of the same is not maintainable.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations and all attending facts of the matter, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is refused.
However, considering the facts of the mater, it is directed that in case, applicant appears/surrenders before the court below within three weeks from today and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with settled law.
The instant application for anticipatory bail is disposed off accordingly.
Order Date :- 19.10.2022 Neeraj