Allowed

Jitendra Yadav and Anr. v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2023ABAIL/2200/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court converted an interim anticipatory bail order of 17.03.2020 into an absolute order. The applicants sought bail in a criminal case involving illegal mining and alleged forgery of compounding receipts. The court allowed the bail pending the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application allowed; interim order dated 17.03.2020 made absolute pending submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Jitendra Yadav and Anr. Vs State of U.P. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2200 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Jitendra Yadav And Anr Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶6

This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicants after rejecting their anticipatory bail application by the order dated 18.12.2019 passed by learned District Judge, Ballia, seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 91 of 2019, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Ballia.

¶7

On 17.03.2020, a coordinate Bench of this Court, while granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicants, has passed following order :-

¶8

"Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

This anticipatory bail application has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 91 of 2019, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Ballia, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

As per the F.I.R., with regard to the illegal mining, the D.M. had passed an order that compounding could be permitted with the owners of the vehicle. As per notification dated 14.08.2017, in para 6 of which it was provided under Rule 70 that those who were found breaching the rules, could get their cases compounded after depositing Rs. 25,000/-. Subsequently, it transpired that large number of truck owners who were shown to have compounded their cases, their receipts were found forged as no amount has been deposited in bank and in all a sum of Rs. 6,98,220/- was found to have been embezzled.

¶11

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the accused applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case; the applicant no. 1 and applicant no. 2 have already given the penalty of Rs. 52,000/- and Rs. 43,480/- and the receipts are annexed at page 15 to 17 of the paper book. They are apprehending imminent arrest by the police. They have no criminal history. If released on bail they would not misuse the liberty and would cooperate with the investigation.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and has argued that the accused applicants have committed offence against the State by submitting forged receipts/treasury challan.

¶13

List this case on 07.04.2020 along with Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.1540 of 2020 before the appropriate Bench and by the said date, counter affidavit be filed from the side of learned A.G.A.

¶14

Taking into consideration the gravity of accusation, there being no criminal antecedents of the applicant and there being no possibility of his fleeing from justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicants are entitled to be released on interim anticipatory bail in this case.

¶15

In the event of arrest of the applicant Jitendra Yadav and Hemant Kumar Singh, involved in Case Crime No. 91 of 2019, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Ballia, they shall be released on interim anticipatory bail during investigation till the date fixed, on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned on the on the following conditions:

¶16

that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶17

that the applicants 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

that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶19

that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officers shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶20

This case shall not be treated as tied up or part heard to this Bench. "

¶21

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that till date, no chargesheet has been submitted in this case. The applicants are cooperating with the investigation and did not misuse the liberty of aforesaid interim anticipatory bail which was granted on 17.3.2020 by the coordinate Bench of this Court.

¶22

Learned AGA for the State does not dispute the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicants.

¶23

In view of the above, aforesaid interim anticipatory bail order dated 17.3.2020 is made absolute till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on the terms and conditions as indicated in the above order dated 17.3.2020.

¶24

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶25

Order Date :- 18.1.2023 DS

¶26

Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jitendra Yadav and Anr. v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Yadav and Anr. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ikrar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandra Shekhar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anuj Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Singh and 16 Others Vs State of U.P.

Tahsin Begum and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Kumar Pal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.