Disposed

Yogendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2024ABAIL/5808/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 323, 325, 307, 427, 34 and 506 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute. The court noted the applicant was unnamed in the FIR, the FIR was belated, and injuries were non-life-threatening on non-vital parts, and granted anticipatory bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on anticipatory bail on personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of like amount, subject to stated conditions.

Yogendra vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:146263

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5808 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Yogendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kuldeep Singh Chahar,Ram Badan Maurya

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Kuldeep Singh Chahar, counsel for the opposite party no. 2/informant, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, 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. 598 of 2023, under Sections 323, 325, 307, 427, 34 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Etah.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 30.07.2023. The first information report was lodged on 04.08.2023. The applicant is the brother-in-law of the informant. Even in the statement of the informant to the Police, the name of the applicant was not disclosed. Subsequently, in the second statement of the informant recorded on 31.08.2023, the name of the applicant was disclosed. As per the medical report, the informant/injured sustained nine injuries. All injuries were found simple in nature except the injury no. 3 on right elbow. The said injury was referred for x-ray examination. As per the supplementary medical report, the injured has a 'hairline chip facture' of right ulna bone. It is contended that the said injury was not on the vital part of the body and is not life threatening. It is next contended that matrimonial dispute exists between the informant and the sister of the applicant. The informant has already filed a petition seeking divorce from the sister of the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is next submitted that the investigation is going on and the applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, in particular, the fact that the applicant was not named in the first information report, the fact that the first information report was lodged belatedly, the fact that in the second statement of the informant, the name of the applicant was disclosed, the injuries sustained by the injured are not life threatening and on the non-vital part of the

¶11

body, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶12

In the event of arrest, the applicant Yogendra , 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:-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;

¶14

(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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶17

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶18

(vi) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶19

(vii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

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

¶21

The application stands disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 9.9.2024 Sachin Mishra

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yogendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vivek Bhargava vs State of Up and Another

Raju Kumar Alias Rajesh vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Pitam Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Hridaynath Mishra @ Rajan Mishra and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another