Partly allowed

Satish Kumar Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2022ABAIL/20021/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An anticipatory bail application was filed by two applicants for offences related to making and selling fake liquor. The court granted bail to the first applicant with no criminal record on bond conditions, but rejected the second applicant's plea due to his history of two related criminal cases involving similar charges and the Gangster Act.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed for Satish Kumar Yadav on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with sureties, subject to conditions; rejected for Dharmendra Kumar Yadav.

Satish Kumar Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 20021 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Satish Kumar Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sushil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants- Satish Kumar Yadav and Dharmendra Kumar Yadav , seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 130 of 2020, under Sections 272, 273, 420, 467, 468, 471, 307 I.P.C. and 60 (2) Excise Act and 51(B) The Uttar Pradesh Disaster Management Act, Police Station Lodha, District Aligarh.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicants although are named in the first information report but their names have been disclosed in the confessional statements of co-accused Dilip @ Chotu and Noor Mohammad @ Kalu given to the police who were arrested from the spot who have stated that the material recovered from their possession was being transported for making fake liquor which was to be supplied to the applicants, co-accused Anil Khatik, Amit Jadaun and Ashish Jadaun. It is argued that the statements are inadmissible evidences. It is further argued that the applicants have no concern with the recovered material. It is next argued that the present case is a case of no injury. Learned counsel has further argued that the applicant no.1- Satish Kumar Yadav has no criminal history as stated in para 12 of the affidavit.

¶8

Learned counsel has placed paragraph 13 of the affidavit and has argued that the applicant No.2- Dharmendra Kumar Yadav has been falsely implicated in two other cases being Case Crime No. 366 of 2020, under Section 60 (1) Excise Act and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 259, 269, 272, 273, 34 I.P.C. and 51 (B) The Uttar Pradesh Disaster Management Act and 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, Police Station Lodha, District Aligarh and Case Crime No. 708 of 2020, under Section 2/3 of U.P.

¶9

Gangster Act and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh and in both the cases, he is on bail. Annexure-3 of the affidavit being the orders granting bail to him in both the cases have been placed before the Court.

¶10

Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and argued that the implication of the applicants is on the basis of disclosure of their names by coaccused in the confessional statements to the police. It is argued that the applicant no.2 has criminal history of two cases.

¶11

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that although the applicants are named in the first information report but their implication is on the basis of disclosure of their names by co-accused persons. The applicant no.1 has no criminal history. The applicant no.2 has criminal history of two cases in which one case is of the same nature as that of the present case and the other case is of gangsters act.

¶12

In so far the anticipatory bail application of the applicant no.1- Satish Kumar Yadav is concerned, the same is allowed.

¶13

In so far the anticipatory bail application of the applicant no.2- Dharmendra Kumar Yadav is concerned, as he is having criminal history of two cases, the same is rejected.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Satish Kumar Yadav , involved in Case Crime No. 130 of 2020, under Sections 272, 273, 420, 467, 468, 471, 307 I.P.C. and 60 (2) Excise Act and 51 (B) The Uttar Pradesh Disaster Management Act, Police Station Lodha, District Aligarh, 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 his 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

(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 office;

¶17

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be

¶18

deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

The applicant is directed to produce a 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.

¶22

The anticipatory bail application is disposed of.

¶23

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶24

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶25

Order Date :- 7.2.2022 AS Rathore

¶26

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR Date: 2022.02.08 17:37:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satish Kumar Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Km. Nisha Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Dubey @ Rajan Vs State of U.P.

Suhail Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Prema Devi Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Vs State of U.P.

Praveen Bharti Vs State of U.P.