The High Court dismissed the State's opposition and allowed a Section 438 Cr.P.C. application, granting the applicant anticipatory bail with standard conditions pending the conclusion of the trial.
The applicant Sudhir Yadav was enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties pending the conclusion of trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10625 of 2022
Applicant :- Sudhir Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Janardan Yadav,Amit Daga Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned State Law Officer for the State as well as perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.1538 of 2011 (Criminal Case No.6419 of 2013), registered under Sections 143, 341, 435, 332, 353-Kha, 504, 188, 336 IPC, Section 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Sections 2, 3 and 5 of Prevention of Public Property Damages Act at Police StationKotwali, District Azamgarh with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
As per prosecution story, several persons are said to have formed an unlawful assembly on 04.11.2021 at about 8:30 am and are stated to have caused injuries to several police personnel and one person Sudhir Yadav s/o Ram Harak was named in the array of accused persons at serial no.12 in the said FIR.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. He is a bonafide person running a school named as R.D. Memorial Senior Secondary School and he bears the same name as accused no.12 as arrayed in the FIR, but his fathers name is Hari Prasad Yadav and his name has been dragged later on after a passage of time of one and half years. Learned counsel has further stated that the charge-sheet has been filed and non bailable warrant has been issued against him way back in the year 2018, but the applicant had no knowledge of the said process initiated against the applicant. The criminal history of one case stands explained in paragraph 2 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.11.2022, wherein in the said case closure report was filed, which was accepted by the court concerned. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the
applicant have also been touched upon at length. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Sudhir Yadav be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/court concerned with the following conditions:-
It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
Order Date :- 15.12.2022 Ravi Kant
Digitally signed by RAVI KANT Date: 2022.12.15 17:03:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in the pending criminal case given the nature of accusations and his antecedents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)Applied¶11
Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sudhir Yadav
State Of U.P.
Krishan Pahal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
