Allowed

Veer Bhadur Yadav and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2023ABAIL/396/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to eight applicants in a case involving a riot and grievous injury (IPC 307, etc.) for the period until the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., finding prima facie no evidence of their involvement.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and complying with conditions of interrogation and non

Veer Bhadur Yadav and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:132727

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 396 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Veer Bhadur Yadav And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sushma Yadav,Hirdesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants- 1. Veer Bahadur Yadav, 2. Om Prakash Yadav, 3. Kavindra Singh Yadav, 4. Uday Pratap Yadav, 5. Arvind Kumar Yadav, 6. Dhananjay Singh Yadav, 7. Manoj Kumar Yadav and 8. Mahendra Singh Yadav seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 108 of 2022, under Sections 147, 307, 323, 325, 354, 336, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Shuhwal, District- Ghazipur.

¶8

It appears from perusal of record that 16 persons were named in the FIR for forming an unlawful assembly for making assault upon the informant and his family members carrying dangerous weapons in their hands. The informant and other family members received injuries. The younger brother of the informant Om Prakash Kushwaha was assaulted with intention to kill by coaccused Madan Yadav with the aid of iron rod. FIR was lodged and investigation started. During investigation charge sheet was submitted against some of the accused persons whereas investigation is still going on in respect of the present appellants.

¶9

It has been argued 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. It is further submitted that only simple injuries have been caused to the injured. It is further submitted that although fracture has been found in the medical report of the injured Om Prakash Kushwaha but he was assaulted by co-accussed Madan Yadav with the aid of iron rod and not by the present applicants. It is further submitted that the criminal history of the applicants has been explained in the

¶10

affidavit. It is also submitted that the applicants are cooperative in the investigation of the case. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that injured Om Prakash Kushwaha has sustained fracture and grevious injuries and some other members of the informant's family are also injured in this case. It is further submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted against some of the accused persons and active participation and active role of the present applicants come into light on the basis of the statement of the eye-witnesses and injured persons. On these grounds prayer for refusal of anticipatory bail has been made.

¶12

Having heard to the rival submissions of the parties and after considering the materials available on record, prima facie it appears that the grievous injuries to injured Om Prakash Kushwaha was not inflicted by any of the present accused applicants and it also appears that applicants are cooperative with the investigation of the case.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

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 applicant 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 applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶17

10. The application is allowed accordingly.

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 5.7.2023 Fhd

¶24

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Veer Bhadur Yadav and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veer Bhadur Yadav and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Harendra Narayan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Malkhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Motilal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Usha Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Veerendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.