Partly allowed

Pawan Kumar Yadav and 2 Other v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2024ABAIL/11829/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected anticipatory bail for two applicants facing serious IPC charges due to assigned roles and likelihood of absconding, but granted it to a third applicant with no criminal record pending trial investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to Upendra Chauhan on ₹50,000 personal bond with two sureties; denied to Pawan Kumar Yadav and Ashwani Yadav.

Pawan Kumar Yadav and 2 Other vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:197388

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11829 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Yadav And 2 Other Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Babhru Vahan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Babhru Vahan Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State- opposite party, and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

This application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 98 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 427, 307 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment), Act 2013, Police StationKotwali, District-Gorakhpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the instant case. The alleged incident took place on 13.04.2024 whereas the First Information Report was lodged on 15.04.2024 after a delay of 2 days without any plausible explanation. In the First Information Report it is alleged that the informant looks after the work of BDMB Developers Private Limited. It has been alleged that on 13.04.2024, the applicants along with some other persons came at the spot of incident with sticks and threaten the first informant and other persons present on the spot to ran away from the spot otherwise they will be done to death and when he stopped them they became more aggressive. On the information of any person, Police came there and apprehended the applicants and after being released, from the police station, the applicants no. 1 and 2, namely Ashwani Yadav and Pawan Kumar Yadav, along with some other persons, armed with pistols in their hand, came there and opened fire targeting the first informant, Ramanand Dubey and Shakti Singh, and they have saved their lives by fleeing from the spot. Thereafter Pawan Kumar Yadav caught the first informant and Ashwani Yadav and put pistol in his mouth and his colleagues, namely Shakti Singh and Ramanand Dubey ran towards the road to save their lives. He further submits that the first informant and all other witnesses have given tutored statement as per version in the First Information Report. The real fact is that the first informant, who is an employee of the BDMB Company started demolition of the construction situated over Plot Nos. 121 to 127 and in the garb of agreement the Company also started demolition of the construction in Plot No. 120, 138 and 140 which is adjacent to the construction of Plot Nos. 121 to 127 and on protest, by the

¶9

applicants as well as other accused persons, the alleged incident took place. Coaccused have been granted anticipatory bail in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 5598 of 2024 and 6541 of 2024, vide orders dated 18.06.2024 and 29.07.2024 by this Court. It is a no injury case. Criminal History of the applicant nos. 1 and 2 have been explained in the affidavit filed in support of Anticipatory Bail Application. Applicant no. 3 is of no criminal antecedents. It is next submitted that the investigation is going on and the applicants have apprehension of their arrest in the above mentioned case.

¶10

Shri Purushottam Maurya, Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail submitting that the main role has been assigned to the applicant nos. 1 and 2. All the witnesses, including the first informant have given similar statements. Charge Sheet has been submitted against the applicants. Non Bailable Warrants have been issued against the applicants, and there is every likelihood of absconding from the process of law hence anticipatory bail could not be granted to the applicants, but could not dispute the fact that no role has been assigned to the third applicant namely Upendra Chauhan and he has no criminal antecedents.

¶11

After arguments being advanced by both the parties, learned counsel for the applicant confined his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the third applicant namely, Upendra Chauhan.

¶12

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant at this stage, but without commenting on merits of the case, the present Anticipatory Bail Application with regard to the applicant nos. 1 and 2 namely Pawan Kumar Yadav and Ashwani Yadav, are hereby rejected .

¶13

So far as it relates to the applicant no. 3, namely Upendra Chauhan, I am of the opinion that he is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial.

¶14

In the event of arrest, the applicant- Upendra Chauhan be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the conclusion of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶16

(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him, before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶18

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 applicant.

¶19

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 copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶20

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations the application stands disposed of .

¶22

Order Date :- 17.12.2024 Deepak/

¶23

Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pawan Kumar Yadav and 2 Other v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar Yadav and 2 Other v. State of U.P. 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

Ratnakar Pandey and Another vs State of U.P.

Pradep Kumar Alias Pardeep Kumar Singh vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Kumar Kesarwani vs State of Up and Another

Savitri Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

Govind vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhart Singh vs State of Up and Another