Applicant sought anticipatory bail in a 2018 cheating/forgery case after his earlier bail lapsed at charge sheet stage and modification applications were rejected for delay. The court found he had evaded summons for four years and rejected the application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:194875
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10057 of 2024
Applicant :- Yash Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and release the applicant on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Case Crime No.545 of 2018, u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri in pursuance of FIR dated 16.5.2018 during the pendency of trial, on such terms and condition as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to release the applicant on interim bail in event of his arrest in connection with Case Crime No.545 of 2018, u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri during the pending hearing and final disposal of this application on terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Abhinav Prasad (Brief Holder) learned counsel appearing for the
2 ABAIL No. 10057 of 2024
State and perused the record.
It is contended on behalf of the applicant that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They did not commit any offence as alleged. It is further submitted that they have been implicated in the present due to ulterior motive. The applicants have no criminal antecedent.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation and the fact that they have no criminal antecedent, the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.
In the event of arrest of the applicants (i). Yash Yadav (ii). Roman Sardar @ Ishdeep Singh involved in Case Crime No.545 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office;
(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.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.
The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicants.
The applicants are directed to produce a certified of this order, before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order."
3 ABAIL No. 10057 of 2024
vide order dated 2.4.2024 passed by another Bench of this court. The said order reads as under:-
"Order on Criminal Misc. (IInd Modification) Application No.3 of 2024.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
The present second modification application is misconceived and is accordingly, rejected"
"21. That at a very belated stage, it came to the knowledge of the applicant that on account of typographical error in the order dated 07.12.2021, the said anticipatory bail application was allowed till the submission of the charge sheet, whereas it ought to have been till the submission of the trial.
22. That faced with the abovementioned situation, the applicants approached this Hon'ble Court by filing correction/modification application before this Hon'ble Court on 26.07.2023, which was not traceable, hence a subsequent application was filed on 28.03.2024 and this Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 02.04.2024 had rejected the said application merely on the ground of delay and latches. A copy of the order dated 02.04.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.9 to this affidavit."
4 ABAIL No. 10057 of 2024
State) which was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.8.2024 on the ground of delay and laches. It is submitted that the applicant has been pursuing the remedies available to him under law and since his previous anticipatory bail application prayer was only granted till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and the investigation concluded and a charge sheet dated 31.8.2019 was submitted against the applicant Yash Yadav, co-accused Ashish Yadav and Roman Sardar @ Ishdeep Singh on which the court concerned took cognizance vide order dated 19.12.2020 and summoned the said accused persons, the case of the applicant is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial.
"Heard Miss Roshani Dwivedi, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State.
Perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed challenging the charge sheet dated 30.9.2019 submitted in Case Crime No. 545 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri, the Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 19.12.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri in Criminal Case No. 2875 of 2020 (State Vs. Yash Yadav and others) under Sections 420, 476, 468, 471, 406 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri as well as the entire proceedings of aforementioned Criminal case now pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri.
5 ABAIL No. 10057 of 2024
At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that present application has been filed after expiry of a period of 4 years and 6 months from the date of charge sheet and after expiry of a period of 3 years and 3 months from the date of the Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order. As such, present application is hopelessly barred by laches. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant invited attention of Court to the averment made in paragraph 21 of the affidavit filed in support of present application. For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein under:-
"That faced with the abovementioned situation, the applicants approached this Hon'ble Court by filing correction/modification application before this Hon'ble Court on 26.07.2023, which was not traceable, hence a subsequent application was filed on 28.03.2024 and this Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 02.04.2024 had rejected the said application merely on the ground of delay and latches. A copy of the order dated 02.04.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 9 to this affidavit."
The explanation offered in paragraph 21 of the affidavit filed in support of present application, does not appear to be sufficient in the opinion of the Court. As such, the laches in filing present application have not been sufficiently explained.
In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
It is, accordingly, dismissed."
6 ABAIL No. 10057 of 2024
(Samit Gopal, J.)
Order Date :- 12.12.2024 Gaurav Kuls
Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to an applicant who avoided the trial court process for about four years after cognizance and summoning.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana vs. DharamrajRelied on
2023 SCC Online SC 1085 · Who else cites this
Srikant Upadhyay and others Vs. State of Bihar and anotherRelied on
SLP (Criminal) No. 7940 of 2023
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Yash Yadav
State of U.P.
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
