Dismissed

Ram Ajor Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Aug 2021ABAIL/12856/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge in Criminal Misc. Bail Application rejected the plea for anticipatory bail. The court held that since the truck carrying illegally loaded mining products belonged to the applicant, no ground for bail was made out, and he failed to establish extraordinary circumstances or a real threat of arrest.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail was rejected. Court directed lower court to dispose of bail application expeditiously upon surrender.

Ram Ajor Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12856 of 2021 Applicant :- Ram Ajor Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ruksana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶5

This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant Ram Ajor Yadav in Case Crime No. 110 of 2021, under sections 379, 411, 353 I.P.C., Section 4/21 Mines and Minerals (Development and Reguation) Act, 1957 and Section 3/5 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, P.S.Kabrai, District - Mahoba.

¶6

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the truck was being driven by the driver and the applicant has no connection with the alleged offence, therefore, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history and applicant is prepared to furnish sureties and bonds, there is no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the evidence.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and has submitted that the truck in which mining products were illegally loaded was of the applicant, hence, the applicant has been implicated in this case, hence, considering the nature of the offence, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail.

¶8

Considering the submissions of both the sides. It is admitted fact that mining products were illegally loaded on the said truck and the truck was of the applicant, hence, no ground for anticipatory bail is made out. It is pertinent to mention that the anticipatory bail is not a substitute of a regular bail and for it, some extraordinary circumstances are required in comparison to regular bail. There should be some special reason for taking recourse of the provisions of anticipatory bail. There must also be a threat of arrest of the accused. The applicant has not been able to show any real threat of arrest or any extraordinary circumstances, as such, I do not find any ground for giving benefit of anticipatory bail, hence the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant is rejected .

¶9

A direction is, however, given to the court below that in case, applicants surrender and give bail application, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously and preferably on the same day in accordance with law.

¶10

Order Date :- 10.8.2021 sailesh

Ram Ajor Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Ajor 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Waseem and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ranveer Singh Yadav @ Rangvir Kumar Vs State of Up and Another

Nandan @ Nandram Vs State of Up and Another

Muzaffar Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Shyam Bihari Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others