Dismissed

Prabhu Narayan Singh Yadav v. State of Up

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2024ABAIL/2206/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought after charge-sheet in a case involving scuffle with police. The applicant had criminal history of seven cases and a conviction, was absconding with a continuing non-bailable warrant, and counsel did not argue on merits. Anticipatory bail was rejected.

What the court decided

AI extract

Prabhu Narayan Singh Yadav Vs State of Up — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:185152

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2206 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Prabhu Narayan Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Vajpeyi,Praveen Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that he was not arrested during investigation. The investigation has concluded and a charge-sheet has been filed on which cognizance has been taken. Further, during investigation, the applicant cooperated in it. The present case is a case of political vendetta. It is submitted that the applicant had approached the Apex Court against the order dated 06.05.2024, passed in the present matter in Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No. 6987 of 2024 (Prabhu Narain Singh Yadav vs. State of U.P.), in which the Apex court vide order dated 16.05.2024 directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the present case subject to the condition that he shall attend the trial court. The High Court was directed to decide the bail application of the applicant in accordance with law. It is submitted that subsequently, the said Special Leave Petition was allowed vide order dated 26.07.2024 by the Apex Court. The interim order

¶9

dated 16.05.2024 was directed to continue to operate till disposal of the present bail application. It is submitted that as such, the applicant was adequately protected by the Apex court. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments/orders of the Apex Court in the cases of Aman Preet Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 13 SCC764 , Mahdoom Bava vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 299 and Asha Dubey vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 4564 of 2024 , decided on 12.11.2024. It is submitted that as such, the applicant be granted anticipatory bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the First Information Report along with co-accusedSantosh Yadav and 100-150 unknown people and there are specific allegations against him. It is submitted that the present case is such in which the applicant was involved in scuffle with the police and had even attacked the police, who were on duty along with coaccused and other persons. It is further submitted that the anticipatory bail of the applicant during investigation was dismissed vide order dated 23.03.2022 passed by another Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 20215 of 2021 (Prabhu Narain Singh Yadav vs. State of U.P.). It is further submitted that the charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant and four other persons on which the Court concerned has taken cognizance and summoned them vide order dated 07.08.2023. It is further submitted that insofar as co-accused-Santosh Yadav and the other unknown accused persons are concerned, the investigation with regards to them is still pending. It is further submitted that the trial court has issued non bailable warrant against the applicant on

¶11

24.08.2023, as he was not co-operating with the trial and the said non-bailable warrant are continuing till date. It is submitted that the present anticipatory bail application is not maintainable in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of State of Haryana vs. Dharamraj: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1085 and Srikant Upadhyay and others vs. State of Bihar and another: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282 since the applicant is not co-operating in trial and is absconding and thus non-bailable warrants have been issued against him. Learned counsel has further submitted that on own showing of the applicant, he has a criminal history of seven cases, which has been disclosed in paragraph no. 22 of the affidavit. It is submitted that the applicant has been convicted in one of the said cases being Case Crime No. 234 of 2015, under Section 341, 352 I.P.C., P.S. Balua, District Chandauli and he is on interim bail by the trial court, a copy of the order granting interim bail to the applicant has been placed before the Court, which is annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the affidavit. It is submitted that the present case is a case in which the identity of the applicant cannot be disputed in any manner and even there is no reason for false implication. It is submitted that the anticipatory bail be thus rejected.

¶12

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that during pendency of investigation, the anticipatory bail of the applicant was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Despite requesting repeated times to argue the matter on merits, learned counsel for the applicant has not proceeded to argue the matter on merits. As such, he has only placed the arguments without touching the facts and merits of the matter. The trial court after summoning the applicant and on his non appearance, issued non bailable warrant against him vide

¶13

order dated 24.08.2023, which is stated to be continuing till date. The applicant is having a criminal history of seven cases and even in one case amongst them, he has been convicted in which he is now on interim bail. The same also goes to show his repeated involvement in criminal cases.

¶14

Looking to the facts of the matter, non-co-operation of the applicant in the trial, his criminal antecedents and the fact of not addressing the Court on merits in the matter, this Court does not find any substantial ground to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶15

The present application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is thus rejected .

¶16

Order Date :- 26.11.2024 Ruhi H.

¶17

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RUHI HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prabhu Narayan Singh Yadav v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Prabhu Narayan Singh Yadav v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases