Allowed

Ramsunder Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2023ABAIL/12579/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court considered an anticipatory bail application in a criminal case involving assault and criminal intimidation. The applicant claimed innocence and malafide naming, supported by a pending appointment letter. The court found a case for anticipatory bail befitting. The applicant was released on a personal bond with two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding appearance, evidence tam

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on anticipatory bail on personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions of appearing before courts, not tampering with evidence or witnesses, and not leaving India.

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

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12579 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ramsunder Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Tirpathi,Tarkeshwar Pandey,Vijay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tirpathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0289 of 2021, under Sections 147, 323, 325, 504, 506, 452 IPC, Police Station Chaubeypur, District Varanasi.

¶7

As per prosecution case, owing to a previous enmity over land, 8 persons named in the FIR intruded in tin shed of the first informant-Ramdhani Yadav and attacked him with 'lathidanda' ; the first informant-Ramdhani Yadav, his son-Utkarsh Yadav and one Kailash Yadav have sustained number of injuries.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that 8 persons of the same family have been named in the FIR because of admitted enmity with the first informant; it is contended that the applicant is innocent and he never participated in the incident and that he has been named to damage the prospects of getting employment in government sector; to support the fact, the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit alongwith copy of letter issued by the Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway asking the applicant to joint as trainee loco-pilot on certain date; it is further contended that the first informant, for ulterior motives had lodged another FIR against him case crime no. 0618 of 2020; the purpose of lodging FIR naming him is malafide; he is innocent and is having no other criminal antecedents and that he shall abide and fully cooperate in the investigation/trial.

¶9

The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by learned AGA for the State pointing our that in this case two persons were injured and they sustained number of injuries; it is

¶10

conceded that in the FIR 8 persons of the same family have been named.

¶11

In case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by the Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶12

In the instant case, I considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case. In my view, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶13

Let the applicant, Ramsunder Yadav involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each of the same amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the conditions as below:-

¶14

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

(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;

¶16

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

¶17

(iv) that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶18

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶19

(vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

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

¶21

10. It is made clear that observations made herein shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion at any stage of the case based on material before him.

¶22

Order Date :- 21.2.2023 #Vikram/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramsunder Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramsunder 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

Pramod Kumar Srivastava and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankush Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeraj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Dushyant Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Kiran and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another