Allowed

Satish Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2023ABAIL/8424/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case involving offences under IPC and the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. The court imposed standard conditions including cooperation with investigation, surrender of passport, and presence at trial stages, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Sushila Aggarwal.

What did the court decide?

Enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties and subject to specific conditions including surrender of passport and presence in

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:180321

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8424 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Satish Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Preetam Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Second supplementary affidavit has been filed today, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Mr. Preetam Yadav learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶8

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.80 of 2023, under Section 465 IPC and 3/5A/8 Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Section 11 Animal Cruelty Act and Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Sikrara, District Jaunpur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant in fact no such incident has taken place as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant is not named in the FIR. The aforesaid vehicle from which recovery of one cow has been recovered has already been sold to one Golu Yadav in the year 2020 whereas the incident is alleged to have taken place 09.04.2023. He further submits that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. During investigation, the complicity of the applicant has been shown. Prima facie no alleged offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 13 of the affidavit. He further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶11

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶12

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

¶13

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.

¶14

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶17

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶18

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 .

¶19

(vii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶20

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at

¶21

liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.

¶23

Order Date :- 19.9.2023/Ajeet

¶24

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

Satish Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Yadav 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

Jouli Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Adanan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdul Quadir Vs State of U.P.

Vipendra @ Babu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shankar Vs State of U.P. and Another