Rejection Of Anticipatory Bail Not a Ground For Not Entertaining Petition For Quashing Of The FIR: Allahabad High Court

first_imgNews UpdatesRejection Of Anticipatory Bail Not a Ground For Not Entertaining Petition For Quashing Of The FIR: Allahabad High Court Nupur Thapliyal24 Dec 2020 11:29 PMShare This – xA division bench of Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench while dealing with a petition seeking anticipatory bail in a case of abetment of suicide, held that rejection of anticipatory bail from the High Court is not a ground for the Court for not entertaining a petition under the jurisdiction of Art. 226 for quashing of the FIR.The Court observed that the scope of Art. 226 is much broader than…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginA division bench of Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench while dealing with a petition seeking anticipatory bail in a case of abetment of suicide, held that rejection of anticipatory bail from the High Court is not a ground for the Court for not entertaining a petition under the jurisdiction of Art. 226 for quashing of the FIR.The Court observed that the scope of Art. 226 is much broader than the scope of Sec. 438 Cr.PC.The case concerned to an FIR registered under Sec. 147, 323, 504, 506 and 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petition was filed by sister in law of the deceased seeking anticipatory bail from arrest against the allegations of harassment and abetment to suicide. The petitioner argued that except for the allegations of mere harassment, there was no direct or indirect incitement of the petitioner to the deceased for committing suicide. The petitioner relied on an earlier order dated 17.09.2020 of the division bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Prem Chandra v. State of UP & Ors. granting interim protection in a similar case.The bench while granting interim relief to the petitioner touched upon the aspect of the scope of anticipatory bail in writ jurisdiction of the High Courts and also dealt with the essential elements in meeting the requirements of Sec. 306 IPC. The Court held that in order to make on offence under Sec. 306 IPC, mere allegation or assertion regarding harassment of the deceased does not suffice. There must be a proof of direct or indirect act of incitement leading to commission of suicide. The Court observed that in the present case, there is no prima facie assertion of any such direct or indirect incitement of the petitioner towards the deceased committing suicide. The observation is in accordance with a similar observation made by the Supreme Court recently in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2020) where the Court discussed the essential ingredients of Sec. 306 IPC. On the aspect of the scope of anticipatory bail under writ jurisdiction of High Court, the Court ruled that the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is much larger than the scope of Section 438 Cr.P.C. The Court while granting interim relief to the petitioner directed that there will be no arrest till the next date of hearing in connection with the FIR. Case name: Nasim Bano v. State of UP & Ors.Click Here To Download Order[Read Order]Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img

Leave a Reply