Abhiramjeet Yadav vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:8112

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11977 of 2024

Applicant :- Abhiramjeet Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjana Kushwaha,Sanjiv Maurya,Shashank Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- Rakesh Singh Yadava,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vivekanand Maurya, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shashank Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satish Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rakesh Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 327 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Nagra, District Ballia, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the basis of false allegation applicant has been roped in the present matter along with other co-accused persons.

¶9

He further submits that neither applicant executed alleged fake gift deed nor gift deed was executed in his favour and he has been made accused in the present matter only because he is the husband of co-accused Achala Yadav in whose favour gift deed was executed.

¶10

He further submits that co-accused Nanhu Yadav, who alleged to have executed the gift deed, he has already been released on anticipatory bail by this court and his order has been annexed as Annexure -6 to the affidavit and the case of applicant is on better footing than him.

¶11

It is next submitted, however, apart from the present case, there is also criminal history of one case against the applicant but the same has been explained in the instant application and that case was also lodged by the informant side.

¶12

He further submitted that during investigation, applicant was not arrested and after service of notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., charge sheet has been filed and after submission of the charge sheet, custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear to be necessary.

¶13

He further submitted that applicant is having apprehension, if he will appear before the court concerned then he will be sent to jail.

¶14

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but they could not dispute the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

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

¶16

Considering the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that during investigation applicant has not been arrested and apprehension of arrest/custody raised by the applicant cannot be brushed aside and co-accused Nanhu Yadav has already been released on anticipatory bail and case of applicant is on better footing than him, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial.

¶17

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

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Abhiramjeet 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:-

¶19

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

¶20

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;

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

trial;

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

Order Date :- 17.1.2025

¶29

Neeraj

¶30

Digitally signed by :- NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abhiramjeet Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhiramjeet Yadav 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajesh Giri vs State of U.P. and Another

Anupam Dubey vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyendra Kumar Singh vs State of Up and Another

Shiv Kumar vs State of Up and Another

Pravesh Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shayam Narayan Singh vs State of U.P. and Another