Dinesh Yadav @ Chunne v. State of U.P through Secretary Home and Another

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2022ABAIL/588/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by Dinesh Yadav, an injured party in a gang fight where rival factions exchanged fire. The court noted that co-accused from both sides were denied bail due to the crime's magnitude and found no grounds to exercise discretion in the applicant's favor.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail rejected; applicant directed to move regular bail application.

Dinesh Yadav @ Chunne Vs State of U.P through Secretary… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 588 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Dinesh Yadav @ Chunne Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Through Secretary Home And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Kumar Singh,Ayank Mishra

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shad Khan

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Ayank Mishra as well as Shri Narendra Kumar Singh, learned counsels for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant - Dinesh Yadav @ Chunne in Case Crime No. 0884 of 2021, under Sections 147,1 48, 149, 307, 336, 504 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Farrukhabad Kotwali, District Farrukhabad, with the prayer to grant him anticipatory bail as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that it is a strange case wherein despite the fact that the instant applicant was injured in the incident, the concerned police personnels have chosen to register the case wherein the applicant has also been arrayed as an accused.

¶10

It is further submitted that in the incident the applicant was injured by the indiscriminate firing made by the other party comprising of Sonu Sharma, Jitendra Kumar and Ashok Kumar and had sustained grievous injuries including that of firearm and was treated in Government Hospital and also was referred to U.P. University of Medical Sciences, Sefai, Etawah but despite an application given by the applicant a separate case was not registered and under the influence of the other party the applicant has been made an accused in the instant case.

¶11

It is further submitted that the injuries sustained by the applicant as such which could not be self inflicted in all probability have been sustained in the incident and now by order passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the concerned Magistrate on an application moved by the applicant the orders have been made for registration and investigation of the case and in compliance of that case Crime No. 68/2022 at Police

¶12

Station Kotwali, District Farrukhabad has been registered against Sonu Sharma, Jitendra Kumar and Ashok Kumar under Section 307 IPC and other relevant penal sections.

¶13

It is further submitted that despite knowing all the facts and circumstances the Investigating Officer of the instant case is making all out efforts to apprehend applicant while there is no cogent and trustworthy material available against the applicant. The applicant is respectable citizen of locality. The criminal history of four cases shown against the applicant has been explained in paragraph 2 of the supplementary affidavit dated 5.3.2022 and thus protection from arrest be granted.

¶14

Learned AGA on the other hand submits that it is a case where on an information received by the SHO concerned that two rival gangs are fighting with each other, police party had arrived at the scene of crime and since persons of rival gang were fighting with each other with firearms and other weapons and on seeing the police both parties had fled away from the scene and no body had turned out to lodge an FIR against other party, the concerned S.H.O. had lodged a first information report himself against Chunne Yadav @ Dinesh (applicant) Saket and Sonu Sharma and Ashok Kumar and Jitendra Kumar.

¶15

It is further submitted that magnitude of the fight between the rival gang is such that local residents were harassed and shocked as there was a complete anarchy. The incident is such where both the parties have sustained injuries.

¶16

It is also submitted that accused persons on behalf of both the parties, namely, Saket Kumar, Jitendra Kumar and Ashok Kumar had earlier approached this Court for obtaining protection from arrest, however, none of them have been granted the facility of anticipatory bail and having regard to the magnitude of the crime the applicant is also not entitled for any protection from arrest as custodial interrogation would be required.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that on the relevant date and time on information received by the S.H.O. concerned he arrived at the scene of the crime and found that two rival groups are fighting with each other by using firearms and other weapons. There are allegations in the first information report that both the parties were involved in the assault which was being made against each other by using firearms and other weapons. Primafacie it appears that the instant applicant has sustained firearm injury as well as an incised wound apart from other injuries and two of his injuries appear to be grievous. A

¶18

cross case appears to have been lodged by the instant applicant but how sustaining injuries and filing of a separate case would dilute the magnitude of the crime has not been clarified. One person, namely Ashok Kumar Sharma of the other party is also stated to have received injury, though of simple nature.

¶19

Having regard to all the facts and circumstances it may be recalled that there is a difference between the regular bail application provided under Section 439 Cr.P.C. vis-a-vis the provision of anticipatory bail which has been provided under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab ; (1980) 2 SCC 655 and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra 2011)1 SCC 694 as well as in the recent constitutional Bench decision in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1 has categorized the cases wherein a discretion could be exercised in favour of those accused persons who are being subjected to criminal litigation without any fault of them. Either on the basis of political rivalry or on the basis of unnecessarily harassment caused to them by making false accusation without any basis.

¶20

Thus having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view that co-accused persons of the crime have also been denied the facility of anticipatory bail and in view of the magnitude of the occurrence, I do not find any good ground to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicant. Thus anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant is hereby rejected.

¶21

Mere rejection of the anticipatory bail application of the instant applicant - Dinesh Yadav @ Chunne would certainly not preclude him from moving a regular bail application before the trial court and if such an application is moved the same shall be disposed of with expedition.

¶22

Order Date :- 22.4.2022 Muk

¶23

Digitally signed by MOHD UMAR KHAN Date: 2022.04.27 12:41:18 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dinesh Yadav @ Chunne v. State of U.P through Secretary Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Yadav @ Chunne v. State of U.P through Secretary Home and Another

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

Lalta Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Harpyari Vs State of U.P.

Shamshad Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Beena Vs State of U.P.

Riyazuddin Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Kaunnaujiya Vs State of U.P.