Ram Chandra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 1

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3951 of 2020

Applicant :- Ram Chandra Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant states that he could not file the certified copy of the impugned F.I.R. due to COVID-19 and prays for exemption. The exemption application is allowed.

¶6

Heard Sri D.K.Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, A.R.Chaurasia, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that the applicant had earlier approached this Court by means of filing Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.1711 of 2020 and the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.2.2020 referred the matter to the Larger Bench of this Court as the petitioner had directly approached this Court without disclosing any special reason or circumstance for the same and the applicant was given liberty to approach the Court below to seek anticipatory bail and after passing of the said order, the applicant approached the Court below and filed anticipatory bail application which was rejected by the Court below on 20.6.2020, hence, the present anticipatory bail application.

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there was some dispute between the parties with respect to the execution of sale deed of a property for which it is stated that the applicant had taken Rs.6.5 lacs which is false one and after 2-1/2 years of the incident the present F.I.R. has been lodged by the complainant on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with an allegation that the applicant had taken money from the complainant for providing job in the S.B.I., the said allegation has been levelled just to distract from the earlier dispute between the parties. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedents, the said fact has been mentioned in paragraph no.15 of the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶9

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation and the fact that he has no criminal antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶10

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Ram Chandra Yadav involved in Case Crime No.166 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Pawai, District Azamgarh, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- 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:-

¶11

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶12

(ii) the applicant 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;

¶13

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶14

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶15

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶16

The applicant is directed to produce a certified copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶17

The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶18

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶19

Order Date :- 9.7.2020

¶20

NS

Ram Chandra Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Chandra Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhikhambar Dixit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Afak Alvi @ Afak Jakaria Alvi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Babli Vs State of U.P.

Monu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Prem Narayan Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anjani Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another