Allowed

Priyanka Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC31 Aug 2024ABAIL/7947/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Priyanka Yadav charged under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC. The court upheld the claim of bonafide purchase and lack of societal impact, granting bail contingent on furnishing a bond and complying with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to Priyanka Yadav on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, effective till the submission of the charge sheet.

Priyanka Yadav vs State of U.P. — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:140518

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7947 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Priyanka Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Aman Arya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Priyanka Yadav in Case Crime No. 190 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station - Kaptanganj, District - Kushi Nagar.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is bonafide purchaser and the property in question has been sold by imposter to the applicant and the civil suit in this respect is pending. It is submitted that applicant has no objection that in the civil suit, sale deed in dispute may be cancelled. It is further submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and has no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further argued that applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No prima facie case is made out against the applicant. If the applicant is enlarged on anticipatory bail, she will not misuse the liberty and cooperate with the investigation. The applicant has apprehension of her arrest by the police any time. Applicant has no previous criminal history.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer but does not dispute the factual matrix.

¶10

It is not shown by learned AGA that the offence in question will have impact on society at large. It is not shown that act causes harm to the society. The accusations arise out of dispute between individuals. It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the

¶11

applicant for relief of anticipatory bail. Learned AGA has not raised concern that any prejudice would be caused to free, fair and full investigation in the event the applicant is granted 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 her mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use her liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶12

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

¶13

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 have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶14

In view of the above, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail in respect of offence described in para 2 of the present order. In the event of arrest of the applicant, she shall be released on anticipatory bail till submission of charge sheet on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

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

¶16

(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 him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(vi) The applicant shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police.

¶21

(vii) The applicant shall maintain law and order.

¶22

(viii) The applicant shall at the time of execution of the bond, furnish his address and mobile number to investigating officer, and the court concerned.

¶23

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

¶24

(x) Non presence of the applicant or his 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.

¶25

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.

¶26

With the directions made above, the anticipatory bail application stands allowed .

¶27

Order Date :- 31.8.2024

¶28

D. Tamang

¶29

Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Priyanka Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka 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

Similar cases

Smt Purwahi vs Workmens Compensation Commissioner Cum Deputy Labour Commissioner and Another

Triveni Prasad Mishra vs State of Up and 4 Others

Girish Chandra vs State of Up and 4 Others

Manoj Kumar Saxena vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shamim Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Kumar vs State of Up and Another