Allowed

Akash Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2024ABAIL/2357/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, granted anticipatory bail to Akash Yadav in a case involving Sections 323, 324, 325, 504, 506, and 304 IPC. The court noted the applicant was named only during the investigation, not the FIR. Liberty is granted subject to conditions and issuance of notice to the State.

What did the court decide?

Liberty of applicant protected till completion of investigation or filing of police report subject to conditions.

Akash Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko and… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2357 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Akash Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Kumar Bajpai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

1. Heard Sri Rajiv Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶6

2. Issue notice to opposite party No.2 returnable at an early date, for which, necessary steps be taken within a week.

¶7

3. Office to proceed accordingly.

¶8

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit, the same is taken on record.

¶9

5. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the present applicant (Akash Yadav) apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.0095 of 2024, under Sections 323, 324, 325 504, 506 & 304 I.P.C., Police Station-Baldirai, DistrictSultanpur.

¶10

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) inasmuch as at the time of lodging the F.I.R. the applicant was not named nor any allegation was levelled against him. During the course of investigation, the statement of injured as well as other persons has been recorded and no one has alleged against the present applicant. Though the injured succumbed to his injuries on the next date of incident in question. Annexure No.SA-2 is an extract of the Pendrive showing the statement of the injured on the date of incident and he specifically named some persons, namely, Sri Sampatti Lal Yadav S/o Sri Brahmadin, Sri Vijay Bahadur S/o Sri Sampatti Lal Yadav, Sri Karm Raj Yadav S/o Sri Guru Prasad and Sri Bajrangi Yadav S/o Sri Ram Sumer but no allegation has been levelled against the present applicant. While recording the supplementary statement (Majeed Bayan) the complainant and other witnesses

¶11

alleged against the present applicant. The aforesaid supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded after three days of the incident and the statement of other witnesses has been recorded after about fifteen days from the date of incident.

¶12

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that since the name of Bajrangi Yadav was to be deleted for extraneous consideration, therefore, the name of the present applicant has been implicated. The present applicant is having no previous criminal history of any kind whatsoever. The investigation in respect of involvement of the present applicant is still pending consideration and the applicant undertake that he shall cooperate in the investigation properly and shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail, if so granted.

¶13

8. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the aforesaid request of learned counsel for the applicant and has submitted that since the victim (since deceased) sustained eight injuries and during the course of supplementary statement the culpability of the present applicant has come into notice, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to get the protection of anticipatory bail and, as such, the instant bail application may be rejected.

¶14

9. Having considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, notably, no allegation has been levelled against the present applicant while lodging the F.I.R. and while recording the statement of the victim (since deceased) and other witnesses and the prsent applicant has been implicated during the course of recording the supplementary statement of the complainant and the other witnesses, the applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation and has given his undertaking that he shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail, if granted, I find it appropriate that liberty of the present applicant may be protected till completion of the investigation in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶15

10. Therefore, it is directed that the liberty of the present applicant (Akash Yadav) is protected in the aforesaid case crime number till completion of investigation or till filing of the police report with the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶17

(ii) that the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court;

¶18

(iii) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence during trial;

¶19

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶20

(v) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶21

(vi) that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the learned counsel for the State shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶22

11. Let the counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter.

¶23

12. List this case in the week commencing 09.12.2024 within top ten cases.

¶24

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶25

Order Date :- 23.10.2024 Suresh/

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Akash Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akash Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Ajay Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Vikash Kachchi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Kanhiya Lal Thru. Father Ram Dhani vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko vs Sunil Kumar Sonkar

Shri Chandra Shukla and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Abhishek Patel vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.