Dismissed

Yogesh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2023ABAIL/7723/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused an anticipatory bail application filed by Yogesh in a case involving assault allegations. The court held that the apprehension of arrest was not founded on material. It directed that if the applicant surrenders and files a bail application, it must be heard expeditiously following Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for grant of anticipatory bail refused. Direction issued to hear regular bail application expeditiously upon surrender.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:143241

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7723 of 2023 Applicant :- Yogesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶6

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.0139 of 2023, under Sections 147, 342, 323, 325, 308 IPC, Police Station Dankaur, District Gautam Buddha Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, in fact, no such incident has taken place. The applicants has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. As per allegation, the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons have committed maarpeet with the son of the informant Amit as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. He further submits that the fact is that the applicant has not committed maarpeet with the informant. The applicant has not detained the injured Amit in the house and has not caused any injury to him and the injury has been caused while the injured Amit trying to jump over the wall as he fell down from the wall. There was no motive for the applicant to commit such offence. Prima facie no offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 26 of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate with the trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant and has submitted that the applicant alongwith other coaccused persons have committed maarpeet with the son of the informant, as a result of which, he sustained as many as 15 injures. Medical report fully supported the prosecution story, therefore,keeping view the seriousness of the allegations made

¶9

against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶10

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant.

¶11

After having very carefully examined, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material brought on record, there is no justification for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is hereby refused.

¶12

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that directions may be given to the court below to consider the bail application of the applicant in view of the judgment in the case Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

¶13

In the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for deciding of the bail application. For that purpose, the cases have been divided under four categories. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the trial courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines, while considering the bail application. This Court has no doubt, that as and when, the applicants approach the trial court for bail, the trial court shall definitely follow the directions given in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

¶14

However, considering the nature of the allegations and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court concerned and applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra).

¶15

With the above directions, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of finally.

¶16

Order Date :- 19.7.2023 Ajeet

¶17

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yogesh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh 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

Gola @ Golu @ Neeraj Prajapati Vs State of U.P through Principle Secretary ,Home, Govt. of U.P

Surendra Kumar Awasthi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohd Khalid Vs State of U.P.

Shobha Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Aakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hasimuddin Vs State of U.P.