Raj Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:16038

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 355 of 2024

Applicant :- Raj Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Verma,Abhishek Singh,Jai Singh,Santosh Kumar Verma,Shobhit Singh,Viksit Srivastava,Yojana Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including up-to-date case diary and charge sheet in this case has also been submitted.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant application has been moved by the applicant- Raj Yadav in Criminal Case No. 36206 of 2022, Crime No. 474 of 2021, under Sections 406, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Barabanki, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending arrest in the abovementioned case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The F.I.R. of this case has been lodged under the orders of the Court passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the allegations which have been levelled against the applicant in the said F.I.R. has been aggravated with the help of a legal professional.

¶10

It is further submitted that the alleged offences against the applicant are triable by Magistrate and are punishable with upto seven years of imprisonment and during the course of investigation the applicant has cooperated in the investigation, there was no occasion or opportunity for the investigating officer to have arrested him and the charge sheet has been submitted without arresting him. He is ready to cooperate in the trial as he has cooperated in the investigation and would remain present before the trial court as and when his presence would be required and would not seek any adjournment especially when

¶11

the prosecution witnesses would be in attendance.

¶12

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶13

Considering the fact that applicant has not been arrested during the course of investigation, the alleged offences against the applicant wherein the charge sheet has been submitted are punishable with upto seven years of imprisonment, the applicant is not having any criminal history, a case of anticipatory bail is made out in favour of the applicant.

¶14

Thus, Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773, Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Director : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 941 and Siddharth v. State of UP : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615, Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab; (1980) 2 SCC 655 , Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1 and in Nathu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others, 2021(6) SCC 64, MANU/SC/0360/2021, liberty of the applicant may be protected.

¶15

Thus, the instant anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant- Raj Yadav is allowed and it is provided that in the event of arrest of the applicant under any process of the trial court or on his appearance before trial court within 20 days from today i.e. till 13.03.2024, whichever is earlier, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the S.H.O. concerned/Investigating/Arresting officer/Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶16

(i). The applicant if not arrested earlier, shall surrender before the trial court within 20 days from today and will cooperate in the trial.

¶17

(ii). The applicant shall Cooperate in the investigation and will make himself available as and when required by the Investigating officer of the case, even for the recovery of any fact, in case of further investigation.

¶18

(iii). The applicant shall not make any attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses and will also not commit any crime during his release on anticipatory bail.

¶19

(iv). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence

¶20

and specially when the prosecution witnesses are present in court.

¶21

(v). 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.

¶22

If in the opinion of the trial court default of any of the condition placed above 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 shall proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶23

It is clarified that all the observations contained in this order are only for disposal of this anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial proceedings in any manner.

¶24

Order Date :- 22.2.2024 Praveen

¶25

Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Pankaj K Singh @ Pankaj Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Dharamveer Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Dept. of Home

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

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and Another

Gopal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Kunwar Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another