Allowed

Manvendra Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2023ABAIL/7011/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed anticipatory bail application of Manvendra Yadav till the end of trial in a criminal case involving assault and affray, subject to conditions including bond and surrender requirements.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed till the end of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and adhering to specified conditions.

Manvendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194388

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7011 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Manvendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Niraj Tiwari 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 material available on record.

¶7

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant - Manvendra Yadav seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.59 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Erach, District Jhansi.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He has been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant has been cooperative during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that only general role of assaulting the injured persons has been assigned to all the accused persons including the applicant. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. In the alleged incident, both sides received injuries and cross FIR was lodged from the side of applicant. It is further submitted that co-accused Mehar Singh @ Meharkant and Amit Yadav have already been granted anticipatory bail vide orders dated 3.12.2021 and 26.5.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Applications U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. - 15796 of 2021 and 5020 of 2023 respectively. It is further submitted that the offences alleged against the applicant are punishable with the imprisonment upto maximum period of seven years. It is further submitted that no custodial interrogation is required in this matter. Criminal history of the applicant has been duly explained. A submission has been made by the leaned counsel for he applicant at the Bar that the applicant has not been declared as a proclaimed offender by the Court and no process under section 82 or 83

¶9

Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant so far. In case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶11

Although charge-sheet has been submitted in the present matter, but in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶12

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶13

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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, likelihood 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

Hence, 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 end of the trial in the matter.

¶15

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶16

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall make himself available before the court

¶18

concerned on the date fixed in the matter;

¶19

(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 officer;

¶20

(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.

¶21

In case of default of any of the conditions and if at any stage of the proceedings it is found that a false submission is made before the Court, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for the cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶22

Order Date :- 3.10.2023 ss

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manvendra Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manvendra 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

Mohd. Zakir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhannar Devi Vs State of U.P.

Rambhool @ Rajneesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Digvijay Singh Vs State of U.P.

Madhu Vs State of U.P.

Ramji Agarwal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others