Allowed

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

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2023ABAIL/6542/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed anticipatory bail to Saurabh Yadav in a cheating and forgery case involving fake document creation, conditioning it on a personal bond of Rs.50,000. The court relied on constitutional principles regarding personal liberty and factors like the applicant's cooperation and lack of history.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant to be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties.

Saurabh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:158635

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6542 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Saurabh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Ojha,Vineet Kumar Dubey

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶7

In compliance of the earlier order of this Court dated 5.6.2023 supplementary affidavit filed today, which is taken on record.

¶8

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

¶9

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Saurabh Yadav seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0150 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station- Karakat, District- Jaunpur.

¶10

It is alleged in the FIR that two persons Rakesh Yadav @ Chanu and Raju Yadav were held by the police, who were coming on one motor cycle and the persons sitting on the second motor cycle fled away. R.C., Id card, A.T.M., passbook, materials to procure registration certificate, Adhar card, gas connection pass book, laptop, mouse, certificates providing license, mobile phones and several other articles were recovered from both the co-accused persons, who were arrested by the police and confessed that they had a gang, which was indulged in procuring false and fabricated Adhar Card, Driving Licence, R.C., Caste Certificate and Income certificate etc. and they also confessed that the present applicant was the gang leader. FIR was lodged on 28.4.2023 and investigation started, which is going on.

¶11

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is further submitted that the accused has been student of B.A. in the year 2017 and at the

¶12

time of the occurrence he was at Mumbai and had come to his village in connection with his own marriage. It is further submitted that the name of the present applicant has come into light on the basis of the confessional statement of two accused persons given before the police. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit. He is cooperating with the investigation of this case and is entitled for anticipatory bail. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶14

In the present matter name of the accused applicant has come into light on the basis of the statement of the co-accused persons. He has no criminal history to his credit.

¶15

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.

¶16

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 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.

¶17

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory

¶18

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.

¶19

11. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶20

In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his 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:-

¶21

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶22

(ii) 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶23

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶24

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 applicant.

¶25

Order Date :- 8.8.2023 Fhd

¶26

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Yadav 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

Subhash @ Sudesh and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil and Another Vs State of U.P.

Waseem Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rani Devi Vs State of U.P.

Vikram Mavi Vs State of U.P.

Azaad Vs State of U.P. and Another