Allowed

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

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2023ABAIL/7916/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed anticipatory bail application for three accused facing charges of assault, criminal conspiracy, and intimidation. Bail granted till trial end subject to personal bond and conditions including non-interference with witnesses and no travel abroad.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed till end of trial on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each on compliance with specified conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:168263

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7916 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ranvijay Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Kumar Pandey 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 applicants - Ranvijay Yadav, Pankaj Yadav and Krishna Gopal Yadav in connection with Case Crime No.87 of 2019, under Sections 323, 427, 504, 506, 307 IPC, Police Station Atraulia, District Azamgarh.

¶8

Injured Jayant, the son of the informant, was assaulted by the accused applicants and he sustained injuries in the incident and subsequently the informant was also threatened by the accused applicants. F.I.R. was lodged on 10.5.2019 and investigation started and now charge-sheet has been submitted into the matter.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of their arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. They have been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. They have no concern with the present matter. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed into the matter. It is further submitted that only simple injuries have been sustained by the injured in the alleged incident. No fire has been made in the alleged incident. A Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.13311 of 2019 was earlier filed by the applicants wherein a protection was granted to them by this Court vide order dated 17.5.2019 and the said liberty has not been misused by the applicants. It is further submitted that the applicants have been cooperative during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that no custodial interrogation is required in this matter from the applicants. Criminal history of

¶10

the applicants has been explained by way of supplementary affidavit.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶12

In the present case, simple injuries have been caused to the injured. Criminal history of the applicants has been explained. They have been cooperative during investigation. No custodial interrogation is required in this matter.

¶13

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.

¶14

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 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 applicants till end of the trial in the matter.

¶17

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court

¶19

concerned with the following conditions :-

¶20

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter;

¶21

(ii) The applicants 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;

¶22

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶23

In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicants.

¶24

Order Date :- 18.8.2023 ss

¶25

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Tarun Bishnoi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jakir @ Chhabbis Vs State of U.P.

Girjesh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Akash Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Tikshna Pal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another