Allowed

Rohit Kumar Yadav v. State of Up

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2024ABAIL/8984/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the applicant's anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR registered under Sections 504, 506, and 120-B IPC. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that pending cases and criminal antecedents alone are insufficient to deny bail if the State fails to show a risk of absconding or tampering. Bail was granted with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till the conclusion of trial, subject to furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and compliance with conditions under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Rohit Kumar Yadav vs State of Up — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:152359

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8984 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rohit Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satyanand Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 572 of 2020, U/S 504, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station Phase-III, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

PROSECUTION STORY:

¶9

The applicant, who happens to be the Accounts Head of the company M/s West Land Private Ltd., in collusion with other stake holder of the company is stated to have usurped an amount of Rs.25 lacs of the informant and neither provided the money nor the goods to the informant.

¶10

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

¶11

The applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and he has the apprehension of his arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution.

¶12

The applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 22.12.2022 passed in CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12467 of 2022 but subsequently, final report (charge sheet) has been filed under added Sections 504, 506, 120-B IPC. The applicant has not misused the said opportunity granted to him earlier.

¶13

In all, eight cases were foisted on the applicant at a go, which

¶14

stands explained in the affidavit accompanying the application. He has no previous criminal antecedents.

¶15

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶16

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE:

¶17

The anticipatory bail application has been vehemently opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant has not been disputed.

¶18

CONCLUSION:

¶19

In the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in 2016 (1) SCC (Cri) 240 and Manoj Suresh Jadhav & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3428, the applicant therein was enlarged on anticipatory bail in the added sections U/S 438 Cr.P.C. after being enlarged on regular bail U/S 439 Cr.P.C.

¶20

In the judgement of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶21

In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

¶22

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the

¶23

Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶24

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.

¶25

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Rohit Kumar Yadav involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory 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:-

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

Order Date :- 19.9.2024 Shalini

¶34

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶35

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rohit Kumar Yadav v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Kumar Yadav v. State of Up

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

Alka Alias Alkesh Devi vs State of Up

Satish Kumar Bharti vs State of U.P. and Another

Sheetala Prasad vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P.

Rohit Kumar Yadav vs State of Up

Sunil vs State of Up and Another