Allowed

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

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2023ABAIL/2752/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants in a case involving cheating and forgery. The judgment allows the applicants bail on personal bond with sureties on conditions that they will appear in court, not tamper with evidence, and not leave India without permission.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicants released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each.

Anil Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | 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. - 2752 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Anil Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Vaishya,Sanjay Kumar Vishwakarma,Satish Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Raj Kumar Vaishya, learned counsel for the applicants 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 applicants 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 them on anticipatory bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants are maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and have the apprehension of their arrest. The applicants have nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has next stated that the applicants were granted interim protection vide order dated 24.5.2022 by this Court and they have not misused it. It is next stated that the applicants are not named in the FIR. Their names have 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 co-accused person Dhramraj Yadav.

¶9

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that the applicants have no criminal antecedents. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed, they 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 submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶11

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 applicants are entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶12

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 applicants is allowed.

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicants, Anil Yadav and 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

ii. 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;

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶21

Order Date :- 20.9.2023\Shalini

¶22

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Yadav and Another 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.

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

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