Allowed

Anshuman Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2024BAIL/4167/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed bail for applicants accused under Sections 452, 323, 504, and 307 IPC. The court noted the dispute arose from a family matter, the co-accused were already granted bail, and no risk of tampering or fleeing was perceived by the State.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing personal bond with two reliable sureties each.

Anshuman Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40375

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4167 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Anshuman Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

By means of the instant bail application, the applicants seek bail in respect of Case Crime No. 551 of 2023 under Sections 452, 323, 504, 307 I.P.C. relating to P.S. Purakalandar, District Faizabad/Ayodhya.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is urged that there has been a family dispute between the applicants and the victim relating to certain land as they belong to the same family. It is in the aforesaid context that a false FIR has been lodged alleging that the victim was warming himself by lighting a bon-fire on 30.12.2023 and it is alleged that at around 09:00 PM, the applicants along with the other coaccused started abusing the victim and, thereafter, beat him severely with sticks and iron rods.

¶9

It is further stated that the victim ran inside the house and, thereafter, he made a noise and with the intervention of the neighbours, the applicants and the other co-accused left the site. It is further alleged that the victim was allegedly taken to the hospital on very same day from where he was referred to a Higher Center.

¶10

It is stated that the aforesaid fact which has been stated is not corroborated by the statement of the victim and his wife, if, seen in context with the injury report which has been brought on record as Annexure No.6 with the bail application.

¶11

It is stated that the victim was taken to the hospital in Ayodhya where he was examined but this is belied by the statement given by the victim and his wife. Moreover, in the said report as well, it is stated that the victim was brought on 31.12.2023 at around 05:12 PM whereas the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 30th December, 2023 at around 09:00 PM and there is no cogent explanation regarding the same. Coupled with the

¶12

fact that the victim and the complainant has specifically stated that they do not want any legal proceedings and they just wanted to refer the victim to a Higher Center.

¶13

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances including the fact that there is a a family dispute relating to land which is going on and it is in this context the applicants have been falsely implicated, moreover, the applicants have no criminal history and they have been in Jail since 04.01.2024.

¶14

The co-accused Ankit Yadav has been granted bail vide order dated 25.04.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no.4427 of 2024.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail however, could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶16

Considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicants, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicants are at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail.

¶17

Let the applicants Anshuman Yadav and Anil Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 551 of 2023 under Sections 452, 323, 504, 307 I.P.C. relating to P.S. Purakalandar, District Faizabad/Ayodhya be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. The bail application is allowed.

¶18

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶19

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when 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.

¶20

(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may

¶21

proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

(iv) The applicants 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, absence of the applicants is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶25

Order Date :- 27.5.2024 Harshita

¶26

Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anshuman Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anshuman Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Ramla Devi and Another vs Deputy Director of Consolidation/a.D.M. Balrampur and 2 Others

Hausila Prasad vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya and Others

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Thru. Its Territory Manager Retail Territory-Gonda vs Anoop Kumar Modi

Shivam Soni vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home Deptt. Lucknow and 2 Others

Rahul Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Pappu Kumar Gupta vs Union of India Thru. Inspector Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Office Lko.