Allowed

Om Prakash Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept. U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2023/139/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. as the applicants had already furnished bail bonds under a prior interim order and no new facts suggested otherwise.

What did the court decide?

The interim order granting anticipatory bail is made absolute; no fresh bail bonds need to be furnished.

Om Prakash Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:62440

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 139 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Om Prakash Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept. U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sumit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Mishra,Arun Kumar Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sumit Kumar Srivastava learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Abhishek Mishra learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

¶7

The instant application has been filed by the applicants seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.0107 of 2018 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Nawabganj District Pratapgarh.

¶8

In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bailapplication, it has been contended that the applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants had been granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 20.01.2023 (corrected vide order dated 02.02.2023) passed by this Court.

¶10

The State and the opposite party no.2 had filed counter affidavit opposing the anticipatory bail application but no such fact has come to light as may persuade to take a different view from the view taken while passing the interim order.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have already furnished the bail bonds in compliance of the interim order dated 20.01.2023 (corrected vide order dated 02.02.2023).

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that no such fact has come

¶13

to light as may persuade to take a different view from the view taken while passing the interim order, without making any observations which may affect the outcome of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicants.

¶14

8.Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants- Om Prakash Yadav and Rajendra Prasad Yadav have already furnished bail bonds in compliance of the order dated 20.01.2023. Therefore, the applicants need not to furnish fresh bail bonds.

¶15

In view of the above, the interim order dated 20.01.2023 (corrected vide order dated 02.02.2023) is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed.

¶16

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 26.9.2023 Harshita

¶18

Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Om Prakash Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept. U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept. U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. 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

Santosh Kumar Dubey and Another Vs the State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Vinod Kumar Kanaujia and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mannu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Karan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry. of Home Lko. and Another

Shakeel Ahmad Khan @ Sultan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Abhishek Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another