Allowed

Suraj Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2024ABAIL/6722/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application in FIR No. 128 of 2023 under Sections 308, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Chandauli. The court noted the applicant's case was at par with co-accused Piyush Yadav @ Golu, already granted anticipatory bail, and allowed the application with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on personal bond with two sureties, subject to listed conditions.

Suraj Yadav vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:121163

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6722 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Suraj Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Dr. S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I. for the State, apprised the Court that he has received instructions in the present matter, therefore, the instant anticipatory bail application may be disposed of on merit.

¶7

Heard Sri D.K.Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 128 of 2023, under Sections 308, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Dhanapur, District Chandauli, till conclusion of the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the basis of false allegation, applicant and co-accused Piyush Yadav @ Golu were made accused in the present matter along with co-accused Akash Yadav.

¶10

He further submits that admittedly applicant and co-accused Piyush Yadav @ Golu did not cause any injury to the injured and role of causing injury was assigned to co-accused Akash Yadav and after considering entire facts of the case anticipatory bail application of co-accused Piyush Yadav @ Golu has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 10.1.2024 passed in Criminal

¶11

Misc.Anticipatory Bail Application No. 11649 of 2023. He next submits that the case of applicant is at par with him.

¶12

He further submits that applicant is not having any criminal history to his credit and investigation of the case is still pending and police is trying to arrest the applicant.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. however, opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶15

Considering the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that co-accused Piyush Yadav @ Golu has already been released on anticipatory bail and the case of applicant is at par with him and apprehension of arrest raised by applicant cannot be ruled out, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial.

¶16

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Suraj Yadav involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶18

i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶19

ii. 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶20

iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶21

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶22

v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶23

vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶25

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶26

Order Date :- 29.7.2024 SKM

¶27

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

Suraj Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Yadav 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Om Pal Singh vs State of U.P. & 6 Others

Doodh Nath Pal vs State of Up and 2 Others

Smt Deepika Chauhan vs State of U.P. and Another

Munazir Husain vs State of Up and Another

Surya Mukhi Yadav and 11 Others vs State of Up

Raju Srivastava @ Nikhil vs State of Up and 2 Others