SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

AJAY RANA @ SUNNY AND 3 OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P.AND ANOTHER – Respondent
ABAIL 6320/2021



Advocates:
['ARVIND PRABODH DUBEY', '', 'ASHOK KUMAR GIRI', 'G A', '', 'AJAY KUMAR PANDEY', 'SHESHADRI TRIVEDI']

Court No. - 38

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S

438 CR.P.C. No. - 6320 of 2021

Applicant :- Ajay Rana @ Sunny And 3 Others

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Prabodh Dubey,Ashok Kumar Giri

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Pandey,Sheshadri

Trivedi

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

1. Heard Sri Arvind Prabodh Dubey, learned counsel for

the applicants, Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate

assisted by Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, learned counsel for the

informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This anticipatory bail application has been filed on

behalf of the applicants -Ajay Rana @ Sunny, Balendra,

Subhles and Jiya, seeking anticipatory bail in Criminal

Case No. 1607/2021 arising out of Case Crime

No.0081 of 2020, under Sections - 498-A, 377, 307,

323, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station -

Sadar Bazar, District -Saharanpur, during the pendency

of trial.

3. In view of the submissions advanced no useful purpose

would be served in keeping the present petition pending

any further.

4. At present, there are no criminal antecedents of the

applicants shown as also no real apprehension has been

expressed by the State of the applicants fleeing from

justice, if the present application is allowed.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the

applicants that earlier the applicants had approached this

Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.3480 of 2020

(Ajay Rana @ Sunny And 3 Others Vs State of U.P. & 2

Others) which was disposed of vide order dated

22.02.2020 granting interim protection to applicant nos.2

to 4. Insofar as applicant no.1 is concerned, he had

approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc.

Anticipatory Bail Application No.2580 of 2020 (Ajay Rana

@ Sunny Vs State of U.P. and Another), wherein he was

granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 10.06.2020 up

to submission of chargesheet. Relying on the

observations made by the the Supreme Court in Sushila

Aggarwal vs State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020) 5

SCC 1, it has been submitted that in absence of any

special reasons assigned in the order dated 10.06.2020

and in absence of any fresh fact having come on record

as may disentitle the applicants to the protection already

granted all applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail.

6. The above application has been vehemently opposed

by learned Senior Counsel, who would submit that there

are serious allegation made against the applicants and

therefore looking at the gravity of the allegation they are

not entitled to anticipatory bail. Similar submissions have

been advanced by learned AGA for the State.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

having perused the record, it appears that there is clear

matrimonial discord between the applicant no.1 and

opposite party no. 2. The Division Bench while hearing to

the writ petition had observed as under:

"At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted

that the thrust of the allegations is against the husband of the

victim, namely, petitioner no.1 and the other family members have

been implicated by levelling one allegation or the other without

specifically disclosing the date and time of any particular incident. It

has also been submitted that there is no injury report in support of

the allegations. It has been submitted that apart from husband

(petitioner no.1), other family members may be provided protection

during the course of investigation.

Considering the facts of the case as also the relationship between

the parties, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by

providing that in so far as petitioner no.2 (Balendra-father-in-law);

petitioner no.3 (Shubhles-mother-in-law); and petitioner no.4 (Jiya-

Nanad) are concerned, the investigation of the case shall continue

and brought to its logical conclusion but they shall not be arrested

in the aforesaid case till

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top