Disposed

Amar@ Rauki Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2023ABAIL/7280/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court heard an anticipatory bail application. Instead of deciding immediately, the court disposed of the application by ordering the applicant to surrender and pray for regular bail, directing the trial court to decide it strictly per the Satender Kumar Antil judgment.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of with direction to surrender and pray for regular bail for consideration in terms of Satender Kumar Antil.

Amar@ Rauki Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:144303

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7280 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Amar@ Rauki Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Kumar Kesari,Dinesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Amar@ Rauki Yadav in Case Crime No.300 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 384, 386, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station - Rasoolpur, District - Firozabad.

¶8

It is alleged in the F.I.R. that on 29.05.2023 , the present accused applicant along with some other co-accused persons entered into the shop of the informant, abused him and demanded for gunda tax and when it was refused by the informant and his brother, all the accused persons became offensive and fire was made by the present applicant along with co-accused persons with intention to kill the informant and his brother and fire had caused damage to the shop and Lavleen and Sandeep, brother of the informant also sustained injuries. F.I.R. was lodged on the same day at about 13:20 and investigation started which is still going on.

¶9

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. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that although a role of fire has been assigned to the applicant in the alleged incident but however in the CCTV footage which was made available to the I.O. by the informant himself no pistol has been shown in the hand of the present accused applicant and it has been shown that the firing was made by the co-accused Anurag Yadav. It is further submitted that no fire arm injury has been caused to both the injured as reflects from perusal of their injury reports. It is also submitted

¶10

that none of the injured persons has received any grevious injury and the injuries caused to them are simple in nature. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit and if he is granted anticipatory bail he will cooperate with the investigation. It is also submitted that co-accused Sanjay Yadav has been granted anticipatory bail in Cr. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7123 of 2023 by order dated 4.7.2023 and the case of the present applicant rests on similar footings and as such, he is also entitled for anticipatory bail in the matter. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

Per contra learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application. It is submitted that both the injured in their statements given to the I.O. during course of investigation have categorically stated that fire of the incident was made also by the present accused applicant along with the co-accused Anurag Yadav and Prashant Yadav. It is further submitted that co-accused Anurag Yadav having similar role has denied anticipatory bail application by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7827 of 2023 by order dated 14.07.2023. It is further submitted that the fire was made with intention to kill the informant and the injured persons but unfortunately the fire missed and damaged the shop only. It is further submitted that the accused applicant is not cooperating with the investigation and he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶12

Co-accused Sanjay Yadav was granted anticipatory bail by order dated 4.7.2023 but however, the case of the present accused applicant rests on the footing of co-accused Anurag Yadav, who was denied anticipatory bail having a similar role of firing upon the both the injured with intention to kill them by pistol but however, it was also ordered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 14.07.2023 that if the accused appears before the Court and prays for bail his bail application should be considered in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 .

¶13

In view of the above, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of with a direction that if the applicants surrenders before the Court concerned and prays for bail, their bail application shall be decided in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil case (supra). 8. It is further directed that the Court concerned while considering the bail application of the applicants in the light of Satender Kumar Antil case (supra), shall pass an order strictly

¶14

in compliance of the directions given in the aforesaid judgement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in letter and spirit, particularly complying with the order dated 21.3.2023 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid matter.

¶15

Order Date :- 20.7.2023 Fhd

¶16

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

Amar@ Rauki Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar@ Rauki 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

Jaswant Singh Vs State of U.P.

Harchand Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Taki Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lalit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chintu @ Mukesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Pandey Vs State of U.P.