Dismissed

Dipak Kumar Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2023ABAIL/7679/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused anticipatory bail in a case involving serious offences including POCSO, deeming it not a fit case. The direction was issued to the trial court to consider a subsequent bail application in compliance with Satender Kumar Antil.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail refused and application disposed of. Direction to trial court to consider bail in compliance with Satender Kumar Antil.

Dipak Kumar Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:161873

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7679 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Dipak Kumar Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Suraj Kumar Singh 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 Dipak Kumar & Sachin Yadav seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 338 of 2021, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 354Kha, 427 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Chaubeypur, District Varanasi.

¶8

It is alleged in the F.I.R. that on 22.08.2021 at about 9:00 a.m., the accused applicants along with other co-accused, Gorakh Yadav hold minor niece of the informant and tried to outrage her modesty and when members of the public came there, they fled away. F.I.R. was lodged on 22.08.2021 and investigation started and now, charge sheet has been submitted in this matter.

¶9

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of their arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. It has been submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

It is further submitted that the accused applicants have no criminal history to their antecedents and they have been cooperative during the course of investigation and now they are entitled for anticipatory bail

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and he submitted that the applicants outraged the modesty of the minor

¶12

victim and as such, they are not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶13

In this matter, serious offences have been committed with the minor victim of the case in the day light by the accused applicants and in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has specified the role of the present applicants in the commission of crime.

¶14

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. 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants, all attending facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that allegations are serious in nature, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant. Prayer made in the application is refused.

¶17

The application is disposed of accordingly.

¶18

However, in the last, learned counsel for the applicants has urged that direction be given to the learned Court concerned to consider and decide the bail application of the applicants 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 .

¶19

Hence, it is observed that the bail application of the applicants, if moved, shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil case (supra).

¶20

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 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.

¶21

Order Date :- 9.8.2023 Shivangi

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dipak Kumar Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipak Kumar Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Saurabh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rani Devi Vs State of U.P.

Vikram Mavi Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Prasad and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Praful Srivastava Vs State of U.P. . and Another

Ram Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another