Harendra Prasad and 2 Others vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29350

Court No. - 70

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11885 of 2024

Applicant :- Harendra Prasad And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Dubey,Vinay Bhushan Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Two supplementary affidavits filed today by learned counsel for the applicants, are taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No.75 of 2024 (State of U.P. vs Ram Naresh Yadav & Others), under Sections 379, 411, 420, 468, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 4/21 of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation), Act, 1957, Police Station-Chopan, District- Sonbhadra, till conclusion of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Instant FIR is malicious prosecution and is ante time. Allegation alleged in the FIR is false and baseless. Charge sheet has been submitted the the I.O. Applicants have no previous criminal history. Further, similarly placed co-accused, namely, Sanjay Kumar Singh and Shambhoo Prasad, have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 29.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 5444 of 2024 and claims parity with the co-accused persons. It has been submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

On the other hand, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶11

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex 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.

¶12

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

¶13

Let the applicants- Harendra Prasad, Sirmaur Singh and Lakhan , who are involved in the aforesaid crime, be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial 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:-

¶14

i. The applicants shall not leave India during the pendency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶15

ii. The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.

¶16

iii. That 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶17

iv. The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicants.

¶18

v. In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail, the trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶19

vi. 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶20

Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Aditya

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ADITYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Harendra Prasad and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harendra Prasad and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhupendra Singh Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramkali Alias Geeta vs State of U.P. and Another

Safik vs State of U.P.

Monu Sharma @ Manish vs State of U.P. and Another

Shailendra Singh @ Kaka vs State of U.P. and Another