Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12780 of 2023 Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Firdos Ahmad, Mahesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kandarp Srivastava Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Kandarp Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant.

¶2This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.423 of 2023, under Sections 34, 323, 504, 506, 325, 307, 452 IPC, Police Station Mehnagar, District Azamgarh.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, in fact, no such incident has taken place. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. As per allegation, the applicant has opened fire upon the son of the informant. He further submits that the injured has not received any firearm injury. Only general allegation has been levelled against the applicant. No specific role has been assigned. Prima facie no offence is made out against the applicant. The investigation is going on and till date no charge sheet has been filed. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 11 of the affidavit.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶5Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant and have submitted that there are three persons injured in the alleged incident. All injuries are grievous in nature as per injury report. The allegations are very serious and keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, applicant is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶6In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as mentioned above, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicant as per prosecution case, gravity and nature of accusation, this Court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is made out in favour of the applicant.

¶7Accordingly, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

¶8However considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below and seeks grant of bail, his application shall be heard and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. Order Date :- 30.11.2023 Ajeet High Court of Judicature at Allahabad