Allowed

Vijay Kumar Yadav and 5 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2023ABAIL/1257/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a co-accused case involving alleged misappropriation of public funds and fraud in grain distribution, the Allahabad High Court examined the merits of an anticipatory bail application. Considering the nature of offence, the role of applicants, and that investigation was pending, the Court deemed it a fit case for bail. The application was allowed till the filing of the police report, subject to

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each.

Vijay Kumar Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:140770

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1257 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Yadav And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Beerendra Singh Pal,Manoj Kumar Keshari

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶8

Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants - Vijay Kumar Yadav, Ram Nath Singh, Sonanath Singh, Raj Narayan Singh, Chandeshwar Yadav & Rajendra Prasad in Case Crime No.66-A of 2006, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 218, 120-B/34 IPC, Police Station - Bairia, District - Ballia.

¶9

There is allegation of misappropriation of public fund by the applicants and brother of the accused persons and they have committed fraud in distribution of grains under the Government Scheme in District Ballia and the accused applicants were working as fair price shop dealer.

¶10

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the accused applicants that in this matter, co-accused, Surendra Nath Mishra, having identical role, has already been granted anticipatory bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order 08.05.2023 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.1493 of 2023. It is next submitted that earlier, interim anticipatory bail was granted to

¶12

the accused applicants by this Court vide order dated 15.03.2023 but the same has not been misused by them.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer.

¶14

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶15

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶16

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in the matter.

¶17

The application is allowed .

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicants, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶20

(ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶21

facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶22

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶23

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicants.

¶24

Order Date :- 14.7.2023 Shivangi

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijay Kumar Yadav and 5 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Yadav and 5 Others 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

Arman Mehandi Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Kumar Pathak and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Iqbal Khan Vs State of U.P.

Veer Singh @ Jai Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sheela and Another Vs State of U.P.