# Anis & General v. State of U.P - **Citation:** (2009) 2 ILRA 378 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2009-05-27 - **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.21955 of 2008 - **Bench:** Vijay Kumar Verma - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anis-general-v-state-of-u-p-41387 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Act-Section-42-Jurisdiction of court-arbitration clause 26.4 specifically excluded the jurisdiction of any court- other than courts at Mumbaicause of action partly are within terrestrial limit of Jhansi Court- held no jurisdiction. ## Text 378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.05.2009 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.21955 of 2008 Anis @ General ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. ...Opposite Party Counsel for the Applicant: Sri M.P.S. Chauhan Sri Nasiruzzaman Counsel for the Opposite Party: A.G.A Code of Criminal Procedure- Section 439Bail application offence under section 380/411 IPC allegation of stoling of one set mobile, licensed revolver with six live cartridges-all goods recovered from the possession of applicant-no case for Bail- direction issued expeditious conclusion of Trial. Held: Para 10 Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the parties counsel, in this heinous crime, the applicant does not deserves bail, as stolen licenced revolver and mobile sim are said to have been recovered from the applicant's possession, for which there is sufficient prima facie evidence. Case Law discussed: 2008 (63) ACC 115 (Delivered by Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.) 1. Heard Sri M.P.S. Chauhan Advocate appearing for the applicant and AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. An FIR was lodged on 25.05.2008 at 10.00 a.m., by the complainant Satendra Pal Singh at P.S. Quarsi, District Aligarh, where a case at crime no. 369 of 2008, under section 380/411 was registered against unknown persons. The allegation in the FIR is that one mobile Nokia 2600 having sim card bearing no. 9837036373, licenced revolver 32 bore, bearing No. F.G. 33271 with six live cartridges and Rs.2000/- were stolen from the room of complainant on 25.05.2008 at about 5.30 a.m. The allegation against applicant Anis @ General is that stolen revolver and sim of mobile were recovered from his possession on 02.06.2008. 3. The main submission made by learned counsel for the applicant in support of the bail application is that no such incident as alleged by prosecution had occurred and fabricating a false story of theft and recovery of revolver etc. the applicant has been falsely roped in this case. 4. Next submission is that there is no criminal history against the applicant, who is in jail since 03.06.2008. 5. It is further submitted that at the most offence under section 411 IPC would be made out against the applicant, because he is not named in the FIR of theft and since maximum sentence under section 411 IPC is 3 years imprisonment, hence on this ground the applicant deserves bail now, as he in jail more than 11 months. 6. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the applicant was apprehended by the police from his house and mother of the applicant had sent 2 All] Anis & General V. State of U.P. 379 telegram, as is evident from the order dated 01.07.2008, passed by the court below in bail application no. 2115 of 2008 (Annexure-3). 7. It is also submitted that the applicant used to sell bangles in Aligarh and police wanted to engage him for mukhbiri, for which the applicant was not inclined and hence being annoyed, he has been falsely roped in this case. 8. It is further submitted that the applicant is young boy and he will be ruined in the company of hardened criminals, if detained further in jail. 9. AGA has opposed the bail application contending that stolen licenced revolver and sim card of the complainant have been revered from the possession of applicant and he should not be released in this heinous crime. 10. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the parties counsel, in this heinous crime, the applicant does not deserves bail, as stolen licenced revolver and mobile sim are said to have been recovered from the applicant's possession, for which there is sufficient prima facie evidence. 11. In my considered opinion, the applicant can not be admitted to bail on the basis of the period of detention in jail also. In this regard, reference may be made to the case of Pramod Kumar Saxena Vs. Union of India and others 2008(63) ACC 115, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that mere long period of incarceration in jail would not be perse illegal. If the applicant has committed offence, he has to remain behind bars. Such detention in jail even as an under trial prisoner would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. 12. For the reasons mentioned herein-above, the bail application of the applicant Anis @ General is hereby rejected. 13. The trial court concerned is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant within for months, if possible, applying the provisions of section 309 Cr. P.C. and avoiding unnecessary adjournments. 14. The Office is directed to send a copy of this order within a week to the trial court concerned for necessary action. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.03.2009 BEFORE THE HON'BLE S.K. SINGH, J. THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J. First Appeal From Order No.794 of 2009 NKC Projects Pvt. Ltd. and another ...Appellants Versus Utility Energytech & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and another ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Sri A.K. Gupta Sri O.P. Lohia Counsel for the Respondents: Arbitration Act-Section-42-Jurisdiction of court-arbitration clause 26.4 specifically excluded the jurisdiction of any court- other than courts at Mumbaicause of action partly are within terrestrial limit of Jhansi Court- held no jurisdiction.