Allowed

Roshan Yadav and Another v. State of U.P through Its Secretary (Home)

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2024ABAIL/6054/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought by the applicants in a case involving offenses under anti-looting and mining laws. The high court granted bail for a limited period subject to personal bond, sureties, and specific conditions while directing the investigation to conclude expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on anticipatory bail till submission of police report on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each.

Roshan Yadav and Another vs State of U.P through Its… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:115957

¶2

Court No. - 67

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6054 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Roshan Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Through Its Secretary (Home) Counsel for Applicant :- Devesh Kumar Shukla,Dharmesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.94 of 2024, under Sections 2/3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Section 3/58/72 U.P. Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2021 under Section 4/21 Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act and 413 I.P.C., P.S. Jamaniya, District Ghazipur, during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. On perusal of F.I.R., no offence under the aforesaid section is made out against the applicants and only to harass the applicants, instant F.I.R. has been lodged. The investigation is going on and the applicants are cooperating in the investigation. It has been next submitted that coaccused Veer Bahadur Maurya and Vikash Yadav have been granted anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, hence the applicants are also entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till submission of police report. The applicants have no criminal history. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicants are apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants with the contention that the applicants are not entitled for anticipatory bail as prima facie case is made out. The apprehension of the applicants are not founded on any material on record, only on the basis of imaginary fear, the anticipatory bail

¶10

cannot be granted.

¶11

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and antecedents, the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case for the limited period considering the exception considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶12

Let the applicants Roshan Yadav and Rajendra Yadav , who are involved in the aforesaid crime, be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report 173(2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶16

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶17

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicants.

¶18

The application stands allowed .

¶19

Order Date :- 22.7.2024 Meenu Singh

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Roshan Yadav and Another v. State of U.P through Its Secretary (Home)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Yadav and Another v. State of U.P through Its Secretary (Home)

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

Ashok Kumar vs State of Up and Another

Smt Arjoo and 3 Others vs State of U.P. though it Principal Secretary and Antoher

Abbal@ Ompal vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Daya Shanakar Rao vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinay Singh Tomar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Nazim Tyagi vs State of U.P. and Another