Allowed

Amit Kumar Yadav @ Babu Kumar Sahab v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2023ABAIL/1954/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case involving fraud and forgery charges under various IPC sections and the U.P. Public Examination Act. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent to allow bail subject to standard conditions including cooperation with trial and prohibition of witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial on personal bond with two sureties subject to specific conditions.

Amit Kumar Yadav @ Babu Kumar Sahab Vs State of U.P. and… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:182001

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1954 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Amit Kumar Yadav @ Babu Kumar Sahab Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Vaishya,Sanjay Kumar Vishwakarma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Raj Kumar Vaishya, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material available on record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 76 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and 3/9 U.P. Public Examination Act, 1998, Police Station Chitayipur, District Varanasi, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has the apprehension of his arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has next stated that the applicant was granted interim protection vide order dated 9.5.2022 by this Court and he has not misused it. It is next stated that the applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has come up in the statement of the arrested co-accused person, Dhramraj Yadav, which is not admissible under the Indian Evidence Act. The case is of false implication as the false recovery of knife has been shown from the arrested coaccused person Dhramraj Yadav.

¶9

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. 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 antecedents. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the

¶11

submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Amit Kumar Yadav @ Babu Kumar Sahab 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

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;

¶17

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

¶18

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;

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶22

Order Date :- 20.9.2023 Shalini

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit Kumar Yadav @ Babu Kumar Sahab v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Yadav @ Babu Kumar Sahab v. State of U.P. 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

Manjeet Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P.

Mahendra Pal @ Chhunna Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Avadhesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhola Nath Dhawan Vs State of U.P.

Anil Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Darakhshan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another