Madan Mohan Yadav @ Madan Mohan @ Dablu and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:14385

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 307 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Madan Mohan Yadav @ Madan Mohan @ Dablu And Another

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Arti Shukla,Shameem Jahan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

Learned AGA informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including up-to-date case diary and the investigation is still pending.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

The present application has been moved by the accusedapplicants- Madan Mohan Yadav @ Madan Mohan @ Dablu and Harendra Yadav @ Golu in Case Crime No. 262 of 2023, under Sections 307 I.P.C. and Section 3/5/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act & Section 11 Gha of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Police Station- Kothi, DistrictBarabanki the prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail as they are apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The applicant No.2 has been shown the driver of the vehicle from which animals of cow progeny is shown to have been recovered and the applicants are shown to have fled away from the scene.

¶12

It is vehemently submitted that all the allegations which have been levelled in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements of the police witnesses are false, concocted and could not be believed. No police personnel has injured in the said incident and the only evidence which is available against the applicants is the confessional statements of the co-accused persons. Criminal history of four cases has been shown against the applicant No.1, while applicant No.2 is shown to have two criminal cases, however the same has been explained in para No 12 of this

¶13

anticipatory bail application as well as in para No.7 of the supplementary affidavit filed today.

¶14

It is also submitted that since no police personnel has injured in the said incident, the theory as cooked up by the police that the accused persons had attempted to kill the police personnels could not be believed. Applicants are ready to cooperate in the investigation and would remain present before the Investigating Officer as and when his presence would be required.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand opposes the prayer of anticipatory bail application of the applicants on the ground that applicants are accused of committing an heinous offence and therefore, they are not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it appears to be admitted that none of the police personnels has sustained any injury in the alleged incident. Applicants have not been shown apprehended from the spot and their names are surfaced in the confessional statement of the other co-accused person shown to have been arrested. Criminal history of the applicants has been explained.

¶17

Thus having regard to the reasons mentioned above and keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors., MANU/SC/1021/2010, Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors., MANU/SC/0100/2020, Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. v. State of Punjab, MANU/SC/0215/1980 : 1980 (2) SCC 565, and Nathu Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others:(2021) 6 SCC 64 , in the considered opinion of this Court, personal liberty of the applicants may be protected till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.

¶18

Thus the instant anticipatory bail application is finally disposed of in terms that till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent court in the event of arrest of the applicants- Madan Mohan Yadav @ Madan Mohan @ Dablu and Harendra Yadav @ Golu, involved in aforesaid case crime number shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/Investigating Officer concerned with the following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available for

¶20

interrogation or for discovery of any fact by a police officer/investigating officer as and when required and will cooperate in the investigation.

¶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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶22

(iii) The applicants shall not leave the India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶23

Order Date :- 19.2.2024 Gurpreet Singh

¶24

Digitally signed by :- GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Madan Mohan Yadav @ Madan Mohan @ Dablu and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Mohan Yadav @ Madan Mohan @ Dablu and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manorama Devi Thru. Her Husband Chandra Pratap Patel Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Kanhaiyalal Yadav @ Kanhiya Lal Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Pappu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Abhishek Saroj Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Baijnath Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Mustkim Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.