AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
18 paragraphs · 332 wordsHeard Mr. Manish Kumar No.2, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘APP’) for the State.
The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Civil Lines PS Case No.458 of 2019 dated 09.10.2019, instituted under Sections 147/ 148/ 149/
323/ 341/ 504/ 506/ 353/ 379/ 307/ 332/ 333 of the Indian Penal Code.
The allegation against the petitioner and four named and 10-15 unknown persons is of attacking the police by lathi, danda and stick. Further,
specifically against the petitioner is of snatching the purse of a policeman in which there was cash Rs.3200/- and important documents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the name taken by the police of five persons itself raises doubt about the veracity of the allegation
as in a mob, identification is difficult. It was further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and the general and omnibus allegation is
of attacking the police party. Learned counsel submitted that co-accused, Rajesh Ram, has been granted anticipatory bail on 20.01.2021 in Cr. Misc.
No.31527 of 2020.
Learned APP submitted that the police was attacked and the identification of the petitioner has been made as he was resident under the same
police station. It was submitted that the allegation against, Rajesh Ram, who has been granted anticipatory bail, is general and omnibus, but with regard
to the petitioner it is specific of snatching Rs.3200/- and important documents from the police personnel. It was further submitted that injuries have
also been found on a constable. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner and others attacking a police party is a brazen show of confrontation
with the administration which sends wrong signal to the masses at large.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-
arrest bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
