Allowed

Anuj Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2023BAIL/46269/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court allowed the release of the applicant on bail despite his criminal antecedents. The Court held that since the applicant was not charged under Section 307 IPC and the injuries were simple, no exceptional circumstances warranted denial of bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties and compliance with standard bail conditions.

Anuj Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:221033

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46269 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Anuj Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Karunesh Narayan Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that notice with regard to present bail application has been served on the informant and further submits that instructions have been received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the allegations in the first information report, it is alleged that the nominated accused persons including the applicant have assaulted the victim. The specific role of assault by the applicant is on the injured Pooja Devi has been made. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court to the injury report of injured Pooja Devi which is at page 30 of the affidavit in which there is one injury on the skull and the other injuries are complaint of pain. After investigation, chargesheet has been submitted in which the applicant has not been chargesheeted under Section 307 I.P.C.. However, the bail rejection order contains Section 307 I.P.C. and as such the bail application is preferred including Section 307 I.P.C. The injuries are simple in nature and no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out. The applicant has explained criminal history in paragraph 3 and 4 of the supplementary affidavit. Applicant is languishing in jail since 12.8.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Sri Karunesh Narayan Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant submits that the assault has been made by the accused person. However, he does not dispute the fact that the applicant has not been chargesheeted under Section 307 I.P.C. He also does not dispute the fact that the injuries sustained by the injured Pooja

¶10

Devi are simple in nature.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case.

¶12

5A. Learned AGA has pointed out the criminal antecedents of the Applicant. No material or circumstance has been brought to the notice of this court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witness in previous criminal cases. In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446 , the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:

¶13

"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."

¶14

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶15

In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

¶16

The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another , 2022 (10) SCC 51 . Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶17

No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large

¶18

would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶20

Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶22

Let the applicant Anuj Yadav involved in Case Crime No.311 of 2023, under Sections 452, 307, 323, 354Ka, 394, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act and 3(2)5 SC/ST Act and 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Bithari Chainpur, District Bareilly be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶23

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶24

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶25

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶26

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶27

v. 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 or tamper with the evidence.

¶28

vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶29

vii. In the event, the applicant changes his residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

¶30

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶31

Order Date :- 22.11.2023 Bhaskar

¶32

Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anuj Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj Yadav 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

Manish Kumar @ Hani Vs State of U.P.

Laddan @ Rahmat Ali Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Alias Anurag Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Jaan Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P.