Allowed

Dhamendra Yadav v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2024ABAIL/10142/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant filed an anticipatory bail application for a case involving cow slaughter and animal cruelty. The court allowed bail due to the applicant not being named in the FIR, subsequent arrest-related allegations potentially being false, and apprehension of arrest, noting the co-owner's bail was already granted.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to personal bond with two sureties and conditions regarding appearance, interrogation, and non-interference with prosecution.

Dhamendra Yadav vs State of Up and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176534

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10142 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dhamendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajit Madhesiya, learned brief holder for the State.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.141 of 2023, under Sections 3/5A/5B/8 of Cow Slaughter (Prevention) Act, Section 11 Cruelty of Animals (Prevention) Act and Section 429 I.P.C, Police Station Naugarh, District Chandauli, with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation he was made accused with the allegation that he was the cleaner of the vehicle in which cattle were loaded but entire allegation is false and he was not the cleaner of the alleged vehicle from which cattle were recovered.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that anticipatory bail application of the co-accused Pyari Devi, owner of the alleged vehicle has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 05.02.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.388 of 2024 and on merit, case of applicant is on better footing than her.

¶11

He further submits that investigation with regard to the applicant is still pending and police is trying to arrest the applicant and, therefore, applicant is having apprehension of his arrest, therefore, he had to file the instant anticipatory bail application.

¶12

He further submits that applicant is having criminal history of one another case but his criminal history has been explained in the instant application.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶15

Considering the fact that applicant is not named in the FIR and during investigation, he was made accused in the present matter on the ground that he was cleaner of the vehicle from which cattle were recovered and anticipatory bail application of owner of the vehicle has been allowed by this Court and apprehension of arrest raised by the applicant, cannot be ruled out, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

¶16

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Dhamendra Yadav involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶18

i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶19

ii. that 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;

¶20

iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court;

¶21

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶22

v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶23

vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶25

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶26

Order Date :- 11.11.2024 S.A.

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dhamendra Yadav v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhamendra Yadav v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vansh vs State of U.P. and Another

Shobhit Singh @ Shiv Kumar Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Lalji Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Munish Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabh Goel vs State of U.P.

Ghanshyam Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another