Allowed

Ankit Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2021ABAIL/10810/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in an investigation case involving causes of action alleged under various sections of IPC. Bail is available if arrested until the submission of the charge sheet, subject to bonds and specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted until submission of charge sheet subject to bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties and specific conditions.

Ankit Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10810 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ankit Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Singh Sengar,Chandrakesh Mishra

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Abhishek Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Chandrakesh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.158 of 2021, under sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C., P.S. Colonelganj, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of investigation.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant at the very outset submits that co-accused, namely, Mohd Nooren Ahmad @ Bhayau Ahmad, Shivansh Yadav, Raunak and Vikas Pandey have been granted anticipatory bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 22.03.2021, 22.09.2021 and 01.10.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8043 of 2021, 14426 of 2021, 14387 of 2021 and 16502 of 2021, respectively and the applicant is also entitled to anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would co-operate with the investigation. Applicant has definite apprehension of his arrest by the police.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant with the contention that the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail as prima facie case is made out.

¶10

After considering the rival submissions this Court finds that there is a case registered against the applicant. It cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend him. After lodging of F.I.R., the arrest can be made by the police at will. There is no definite period fixed for the police to arrest an accused against whom F.I.R. has been lodged. The Courts have repeatedly held that arrest should be the last option for the police and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative or his custodial

¶11

interrogation is required. Irrational and indiscriminate arrests are gross violation of human rights.

¶12

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and his antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case for the limited period considering the exception considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicant- Ankit Yadav, be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime, till the submission of charge-sheet, 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶16

(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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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 certified 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.

¶19

The application stands disposed of.

¶20

Order Date :- 4.12.2021 Meenu

Ankit Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Yadav 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lucky Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mehtab and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Umesh Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sabir Ali Vs State of U.P.

Azad Miyan @ Munna Vs State of U.P. and Another