Allowed

Mukul Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC1 May 2023ABAIL/4203/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Mukul Kumar Yadav in a case concerning forgery and cheating. Relying on Sushila Aggarwal, the Court held the applicant entitled to bail without expressing opinion on ultimate merits, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including availability for interrogation and no tampering with evidence.

Mukul Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4203 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Mukul Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anchal Kumar Rao,Amit Daga Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 39 of 2023, under Sections 379, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, Sections 4(1-A) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act and Sections 3/58, 72(1) of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021, Police Station Moth, District Jhansi, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, one truck no. UP93 CT 8928 was intercepted by the police and was found plying without proper papers of the gravel loaded in it. The said paper E MM-11 form was found fake as such, the said truck owner and driver are said to have committed forgery. In this regard, the FIR was instituted on 22.02.2023.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case owing to his ownership of the alleged truck and has apprehension of his arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has further stated that he had already rented it to one Pawan Kumar son of Atma Ram vide notarized document dated 13.02.2023. The offence, if any, committed is by the alleged truck driver as the applicant has no vicarious liability of the criminal act committed by the driver.

¶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 submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶11

Considering 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

¶12

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, Mukul Kumar Yadav 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 below 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 :- 1.5.2023 Siddhant

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mukul Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukul Kumar Yadav 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

Gangotri Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashwin Tripathi Vs State of U.P through Secretary Home and Another

Mahendra Kumar Sahu @ Rinku and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Keshav Sharma Vs State of U.P.and Another

Prem Narayan Vs State of U.P.

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