Dismissed

Sonu Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2022ABAIL/3645/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Miscellaneous Anticipatory Bail Application, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejected the applicant's plea. Despite arguments regarding lack of credible evidence and non-naming in statements, the court held that the role attributed to the applicant warranted rejection of anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

No anticipatory bail granted. Applicant directed to file regular bail application in Court below within three weeks.

Sonu Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3645 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwani Kumar Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit, filed by the learned counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 659 of 2021, under Sections 307, 120B IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Deoria, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. The applicant is not named in the first information report, which was lodged against two unknown persons, alleging that on 17.10.2021 two persons came on motorcycle and fired a bullet at injured Shubham, causing firearm injury to him. Learned counsel submitted that the injured has not named applicant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The involvement of applicant has been shown on the basis of statement of co-accused Dipak Yadav, and except that there is no evidence against him. Learned counsel submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The criminal history of one case has

¶9

been shown against the applicant, which has duly been explained. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the role of firing at injured has been attributed to applicant and that the anticipatory bail application of co-accused Akash has already been rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶11

Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence the present application for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected .

¶12

However, it is directed that in case applicant appears before the Court below within three weeks from today and moves an application for regular bail, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶13

Order Date :- 19.11.2022 A. Tripathi

¶14

Digitally signed by AKHILESH TRIPATHI Date: 2022.11.19 16:02:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonu Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohit @ Rahul vs State of U.P.

Sugendra Vs State of U.P.

Nikhil Raikawar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajeev Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nitin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Wakeel Maurya Vs State of U.P.