Allowed

Anjali Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2023ABAIL/10813/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed anticipatory bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving public property damage and rioting. The court relied on Sushila Aggarwal, noting the applicant had no criminal history, while imposing standard conditions to ensure cooperation with trial and no tampering.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to furnishing personal bond with two sureties and adherence to specific conditions including appearance before trial court.

Anjali Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:156443

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10813 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Anjali Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kant Yadav,Anurag Dubey,Kamlesh Ratan Yadav,Om Prakash Vishwakarma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Pawan Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anurag Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 221 of 2021, under Sections 147, 392, 427 of IPC, Police Station Handia, District Prayagraj, with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the applicant, who had contested the election of Zila Panchayat, is stated to have lost the election and as such, her supporters armed with lathi, danda, axe and illegal weapons had blocked the G.T. Road at Haripur crossing. The applicant and her supporters are stated to have created havoc in the area and sabotage the household items lying in the hotel of the informant on 03.05.2021.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to local political rivalry and has apprehension of her arrest. She has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has further stated that the allegations are per se false as it is the applicant, who won the said election, and there is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant or her supporters has blocked any road.

¶10

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, she will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶12

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of " Sushila

¶13

Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶14

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may be adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶15

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Anjali Yadav involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶16

i. that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶17

ii. that 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 officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶18

iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶19

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶23

Order Date :- 4.8.2023 Siddhant

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anjali Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjali Yadav v. State of U.P.

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

Pwan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanni Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Ahmad Raza Vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishna Pal Singh Tyagi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nitin Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another