Delhi HC: Meta Directed to Remove Obscene Photos of Minor Girl  ||  Cal. HC: To Convict Person u/s 304B of IPC, Conclusive Proof of Cruelty before Death Required  ||  Kerala HC: Can Admit Unregistered Sale Agreements as Evidence in Specific Performance Suits  ||  Cal. HC: Can’t Allow Rectification in DOB of Employee When Age Determined through Statutory Purpose  ||  Cal. HC: Can’t Generally Use Public Exchequer Funds with Official Liquidator for Welfare of Employee  ||  Delhi HC: Can’t Reject Plaint Due to Arbitration Clause Unless Application u/s 8 is Filed  ||  Telangana HC Strikes Down State Government’s Decision to Allot Land to Arbitration Centre  ||  Karnataka HC: Salvation of the Country Lies in Identifying Human Beings as a Human Being  ||  SC Allows Stone Crusher Operation Issue to be Raised in Kerala High Court  ||  SC Set to Hear Plea Challenging Policy of Uniform Pricing for Consular Passport and Visa Services    

Atul Kumar Tripathi vs. State Of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:101797) - (High Court of Allahabad) (05 Jun 2024)

Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice, while deciding anticipatory bail

MANU/UP/1959/2024

Criminal

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case registered under Sections - 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C.), with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

In case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

From the prosecution version and statement of informant, it appears that informant was cheated in a calculated way and malafide intention on part of applicant is writ large. The arrest of applicant was stayed during investigation, it is apparent that the arrest of the applicant was stayed due to the reason that matter was referred to mediation but there is nothing to show that applicant made any sincere effort to settle the dispute or return the amount of applicant. In view of nature of accusations, it could not be said at this stage that matter is purely civil in nature. The anticipatory bail application of co-accused has already been rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of present Court, however one of the ground of rejection is that the same was filed directly before this Court, without approaching the Session Court. It appears that role of co-accused is distinguished from the applicant, who is kingpin of the entire incident.

In view of nature of accusations, role of applicant and all attending facts of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application is rejected.

Tags : ACCUSATION   ANTICIPATORY BAIL   GRANT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved