Allowed

Kamlesh Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2024ABAIL/5754/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous application, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted anticipatory bail to three applicants accused of offences under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Satender Kumar Antil, noting the offences carry a maximum sentence of seven years and there was no material s

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on furnishing personal bonds of Rs.25,000 each with two sureties each of like amount.

Kamlesh Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:137281

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5754 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Kamlesh Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants - Kamlesh Yadav, Brijesh Yadav and Omprokash Yadav in Criminal Case No.14369 of 2019, Case Crime No.137 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 352, 427 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, Police Station Pipiganj, District -Gorakhpur.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant under Sections 323, 504, 506, 352, 427 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act which are punishable upto 7 years. He submits that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773 , the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State could not dispute the fact that the offence under Sections 323, 504, 506, 352, 427 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act is punishable upto 7 years. He does not dispute the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil's (supra) .

¶10

The Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773 has laid down the guidelines with regard to enlargement of an accused on bail. The guidelines provided category/type of offences. Once of the category being Category-A are offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less. The Supreme

¶11

Court in paragraph-3 of the aforesaid judgment has laid down the guidelines that after the filing of the charge sheet/cognizance ordinary the summons are required to be issued permitting the appearance of the accused through Lawyer and the bail applications of the accused persons on appearance are to be decided without the accused being taken into custody or by granting interim bail. A perusal of the aforesaid guidelines would demonstrate that the liberty of an individual has been recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in term of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶12

It is further to be noted that as per Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also during investigation the liberty of an individual is protected in respect of an offence where the maximum punishment provided is upto 7 years.

¶13

It is not the case of the opposite party that the applicants were arrested for offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 352, 427 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act during investigation and it is also not the case of the opposite party for that the applicant has not co-operated in the investigation. Once no apprehension has been raised with regard to the conduct of the applicant and the applicant has been chargesheeted and summoned in respect of offence in which punishment provided is upto 7 years, then in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil's (supra) , the liberty of the individual is required to be protected.

¶14

It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicants for relief of anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

Learned Counsel for opposite parties has not placed any criminal antecedents of the applicants. The applicants have no criminal history.

¶16

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like

¶17

have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶18

In view of the above, the applicants are granted anticipatory bail in respect of offence described in para 1 of the present order. In the event of arrest of the applicants, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on his furnishing personal bonds of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police office as and when required.

¶20

(ii) The applicants 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 office.

¶21

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court concerned.

¶22

(iv) In the event, the applicants change residential address, the applicants shall inform the court concerned/Investigating Officer about new residential address in writing.

¶23

(v) The applicants shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required.

¶24

(vi) The applicants shall maintain law and order.

¶25

(vii) The applicants shall at the time of execution of the bond, furnish their address and mobile number to investigating officer, and the court concerned.

¶26

(viii) The applicants shall regularly remain present during the trial, and cooperate with the Court to complete the trial for the above offences.

¶27

(ix) Non presence of the applicants or their counsel before the court concerned shall be construed as violation of the present order and the court concerned would be at liberty to take coercive measures in accordance with law.

¶28

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶29

With the directions made above, the anticipatory bail application stands allowed. Order Date :- 27.8.2024 Bhaskar

¶30

Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kamlesh Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

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

Puneet Arora @ Ishan Arora vs State of Up and Another

Ajay Kumar Sharma @ Ajay Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahfooz Ali vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijendra Singh Alias Brijendra Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Singh and 10 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Naintara vs State of U.P.