Allowed

Sanjay Kumar Yadav v. State of Up Others

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2024ABAIL/188/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving rape and other charges. The Court considered that the applicant had been exonerated during investigation and initially not charge-sheeted, was summoned later under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and the primary rape allegations were against co-accused. The State could not dispute the applicant's submissions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted during pendency of trial, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties and standard conditions of cooperation.

Sanjay Kumar Yadav vs State of Up Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:136970

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 188 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of Up Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anshuman Singh,Manas Chirvijay Sankrittyayan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

As per office report dated 26.4.2024, notice of the instant bail application has been served upon the opposite party no.3. However, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.3 nor any counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief Holder for the State. Perused the material available on record.

¶8

This application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 238 of 2019, under sections 352, 342, 376-D, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Khiri, District Prayagraj.

¶9

The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 31.1.2024 passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court. The order is quoted herein below:

¶10

"1. List revised.

¶11

2. Heard Sri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶12

3. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 22.10.2019 after which a charge sheet dated 06.11.2020 was filed in which the applicant was exonerated and his name was mentioned in column No. 12 of the persons not charge-sheeted. Subsequently the trial in the matter started and the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 were recorded after which an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed on which the applicant has been summoned vide order dated 03.01.2023 passed by the trial court.

¶13

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that during investigation, the implication of the applicant was found to be false by the Investigating Officer and as such he was exonerated in the matter. It is argued that subsequently in the trial two witnesses were examined wherein the name of the applicant was taken and he was stated to be present with other accused persons namely Ajay and Vijay Bahadur and the applicant was alleged to be armed with a country made pistol but the allegation of rape is stated against co-accused Ajay and Vijay Bahadur. The applicant is stated to have then threatened the victim. It is argued that the FIR has been lodged on the basis of an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 35 of the affidavit in support of anticipatory bail application.

¶14

5. Matter requires consideration.

¶15

6. Issue notice to the first informant/opposite party no.3 returnable within three weeks.

¶16

7. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the first informant may file counter affidavit within the aforesaid period. Two weeks thereafter is granted to file rejoinder, if any.

¶17

8. Let the matter be listed on 14.03.2024.

¶18

9. Till the next date of listing, the applicant Sanjay Kumar Yadav, if arrested shall be released on interim anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 238 of 2019, under Sections 352, 342, 376D, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Khiri, District Prayagraj on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶19

(i) the applicant shall make himself available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned.

¶20

(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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court.

¶21

(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 concerned court.

¶22

10. In case, the applicant do not co-operate in the proceedings of the trial, this order shall stand automatically recalled/vacated and the applicant shall be taken into custody, forthwith.

¶23

11. Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

¶24

12. The court concerned shall not be prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant."

¶25

On 14.3.2024, the Court passed the following order was passed :

¶26

"1. List revised.

¶27

2. Heard Sri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Neeraj Kant Verma, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

¶28

3. Notice was issued to the opposite party no.3 vide order dated 31.1.2024. As per office report dated 13.3.2024, report regarding service of notice is still awaited.

¶29

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 31.1.2024 passed by this Court and prays that the same may be extended.

¶30

5. Perused the order dated 31.1.2024 by which the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail.

¶31

6. Let the matter be listed on 27.04.2024.

¶32

7. Since there is an interim order granted in favour of the applicant, till the next date of listing, the applicant Sanjay Kumar Yadav, if arrested shall be released on interim anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 238 of 2019, under Sections 352, 342, 376D, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Khiri, District Prayagraj on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶33

(i) the applicant shall make himself available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned.

¶34

¶35

(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 concerned court.

¶36

8. In case, the applicant do not co-operate in the proceedings of the trial, this order shall stand automatically recalled/vacated and the applicant shall be taken into custody, forthwith.

¶37

9. Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

¶38

10. The court concerned shall not be prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant."

¶39

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant had cooperated in the investigation. No custodial interrogation is required. The applicant is appearing before the trial court on the dates fixed. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.

¶40

Learned Brief Holder for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶41

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as recorded in the order dated 31.1.2024, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant and in particular the fact that the allegation of rape by PW-1 and PW-2 is levelled against co-accused Ajay and Vijay Bahadur, the fact that the applicant had cooperated in the investigation and no custodial interrogation is required, the fact that no violation of conditions or misuse of liberty of bail has been pointed out by the learned AGA, further the fact that, no adverse material has been produced by the learned AGA, which may warrant any modification of the orders dated 31.1.2024 and 14.3.2024, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶42

In the event of arrest, the applicant- Sanjay Kumar Yadav , involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial , on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶43

(i) The applicant shall make himself available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned;

¶44

(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;

¶45

(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 concerned court.

¶46

In case, the applicant does not co-operate in the proceedings of the trial, this order shall stand automatically recalled/vacated and the applicant shall be taken into custody, forthwith.

¶47

Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

¶48

The application stands disposed of.

¶49

Order Date :- 27.8.2024 S.S.

¶50

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay Kumar Yadav v. State of Up Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Yadav v. State of Up Others

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

Ravi Shankar vs State of U.P.

Aanand Tiwari Alias Pintoo Pandal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Avdhesh and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramesh Kumar Gupta Alias Ramesh Kumar vs State of Up and Another

Sunil Kumar and 3 Others vs State of Up and Another

Raghvendra Tripathi vs State of Up