Partly allowed

Surendra Yadav and 5 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2020ABAIL/1088/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under S. 438 Cr.P.C. for offences under the IPC, the Single Judge refused bail to adult and aged male applicants due to serious allegations but granted bail to applicant no. 4, a lady, and applicants no. 2 and 3, minor children. The case requires expeditious investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to applicant nos. 2, 3, and 4. Bail refused to applicant nos. 1, 5, and 6. Investigation directed to conclude within four months.

Surendra Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1088 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Surendra Yadav And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Dhirendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A for the state and perused the material on record and the rejection order.

¶6

This anticipatory bail application has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 281 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 471, 506 of IPC , Police Station Chakiya, District Chandauli, during the pendency of investigation.

¶7

In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that on 31.10.2019, all the accused persons in collusion and connivance with each other, took the husband of informant with them on the pretext that someone is calling her husband, thereafter her husband went with them and the accused persons succeeded in getting a sale deed executed in favour of accused-applicant no. 4 with regard to the land in question by cheating and dishonestly inducing to deliver the land in question and that the accused-applicant nos. 5 and 6 were witnesses to the sale deed. The amount worth Rs.5,00,000/- as a consideration was transferred from the bank account of accused-applicant no.4 in the bank account of her husband.

¶8

It is pertinent to note here that the accused-applicant no. 1, Surendra Yadav is the husband of applicant no. 4, Smt. Hirawati Devi, applicant no. 2, Inder Yadav @ Indal Yadav and applicant no. 3, Femai @ Udit Narayan are the minor children of accused-applicant no. 1 aged about 14 and 12 years respectively and the applicant no. 5, Umesh Kumar and applicant no. 6, Kamla Yadav are the relatives of applicant no. 1.

¶9

It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. He has further contended that there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R. and no explanation for the same has been advanced by the informant. The sale deed was for a total consideration of Rs.13,00,000/out of which Rs.8,00,000/- was paid in cash and that the husband of the informant is an educated and literate person and he himself has drafted the sale deed and it was executed by him without any pressure as per his own consent. He has further contended that after the execution of sale deed the informant demanded Rs.18,00,000/- as against the agreed amount of Rs.13,00,000/- and on the refusal by the applicant nos. 1 and 4 for the same, a false complaint was lodged by the informant that her husband was kidnapped by all the applicants. It is further contended that the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are minor who have been made accused with ulterior motive. The applicants have no other reported

¶10

criminal antecedents, therefore, the applicants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and contended that the applicants have been named in F.I.R. and that the applicants in collusion with each other have cheated the husband of first informant. He has further contended that the accused-applicant nos. 5 & 6 are the relatives of accused-applicant no. 1. The plea taken by the applicants that the sale deed was for a total consideration of Rs.13,00,000/- out of which Rs.8,00,000/- was paid and in lieu of the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, it was agreed that applicant no. 1 will hand over a tractor to the informant is not corroborated by the sale deed (Annexure no. 3 to the affidavit), as the perusal of sale deed reflects that the sale was only for a total consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is further submitted that the applicants have not produced any conclusive proof in support of their contention that the sale was for a total consideration of Rs.13,00,000/-.

¶12

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the allegations made in the F.I.R. and also looking into the seriousness of the allegation as made in the F.I.R., no case for interference is made out so far as the applicant nos. 1, 5 and 6 are concerned.

¶13

Therefore the prayer for anticipatory bail so far as the applicant nos. 1, 5 and 6, namely Surendra Yadav, Umesh Kumar and Kamla Yadav respectively are concerned, is hereby refused.

¶14

However in the view of the fact that the applicant no. 4 is a lady and applicant nos. 2 and 3 are minor children, I find it fit and proper to grant anticipatory bail to them.

¶15

In the event of arrest of the applicants - Inder Yadav @ Indal Yadav, Femai @ Udit Narayan and Smt. Hirawati Devi, involved in aforesaid Case Crime Number, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶17

that the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶18

that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶19

that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of

¶20

anticipatory bail granted to the applicants;

¶21

that the investigating officer is directed to conclude the investigation in the present case in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this court while considering or deciding the present bail application of the applicant;

¶22

that the applicants are directed to produce certified copy of this order before the SSP/SP concerned within 10 days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of the present order;

¶23

that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶24

that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶25

that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶26

that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶27

It is made clear that if the charge-sheet is submitted and cognizance is taken and matter is committed to the Court of Sessions, as the case may be, the trial court shall decide the trial preferably within a period of one year from the cognizance/committal of the case to the Court of Sessions.

¶28

In view of aforesaid, the present Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application is, accordingly, partly allowed .

¶29

Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is partly allowed with respect to the applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4.

¶30

Order Date :- 18.2.2020 Vikas

Surendra Yadav and 5 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Yadav and 5 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Diwakar Kasaudhan Vs State of U.P.

Rajkumar Vs State of U.P.

Khajan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Manjoor Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Aakash @ Prakash Vs State of U.P.