Ayush Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11941

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 121 of 2025

Applicant :- Ayush Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ambrish Singh Yadav,Anjani Kumar Mishra,Swati Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

From perusal of the report dated 17.2.2025, it transpires that the opposite party no.2/informant has declined to receive the notice, thus, service of the same is deemed sufficient.

¶7

Counter affidavit filed today by the State counsel is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

The present application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No. 0047 of 2022, under sections 120-B, 420, 457, 468, 471 of the IPC, Police StationMahanagar, District-Lucknow.

¶10

From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 27.1.2025, following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:-

¶11

“ Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶12

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0047 of 2022, under sections 120-B, 420, 457, 468, 471 of the IPC, Police Station- Mahanagar, District-Lucknow.

¶13

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated. He added that the deceased, Dev Narain, retired from the post of D.G.M. on 30-09-2017, and subsequently, he died on 07-10-2017 and at the time of death, he was suffering with 'Malignancy' and he was unconscious. He next added that the applicant is the son of the second wife of the deceased and after the death of late, Dev narain, a dispute arose in between the step brothers of the applicant with respect to the post-retiral dues and therefore, the first information report is lodged. He submits that the matter could be decided at the end of the department itself and by lodging the first information report, the matter is being given the colour of criminality. He next submits that infact the applicant is cooperating with the investigation proceedings

¶14

and there is no previous criminal history of the applicant and he undertakes that he will never abscond from the criminal proceedings. He also added that no custodial interrogation is required, whereas the police is adamant to arrest the applicant and as such, the submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶15

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the signatures, which were put on the papers, were sent for it's examination to the F.S.L. and that were found forged. He added that there is no proof that the mother of the applicant was the wife of the deceased and the cheat and fraud has been committed and as such, the applicant is not entitled for any relief.

¶16

It has also been pointed out that an agreement was also entered in between the informant and the present applicant and a closure report was also initially submitted by the police.

¶17

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court finds it a fit case for grant of interim anticipatory bail.

¶18

Accordingly, till the next date of listing, the present applicant-Ayush Yadav, shall be released forthwith, in case of his arrest, in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶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 the previous permission of the court;

¶22

(iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted, the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶26

Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week.

¶27

If the steps are taken, the office shall proceed accordingly. List/put up this matter in the Fourth Week of February,2025. In the meantime, learned counsel for the State as well as opposite party no. 2 shall file their counter affidavits.”

¶28

State counsel has failed to demonstrate from the counter affidavit that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to submit any fact that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case.

¶29

In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Ayush Yadav till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:-

¶30

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

¶31

(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;

¶32

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

¶33

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶34

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

¶35

In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this order.

¶36

Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Shravan

¶37

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

Ayush Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayush Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

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

Alok Kumar @ Alok Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Jaya Singh vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Alok Kumar @ Alok Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Mohammad Shakeel @ Shakeel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and

Sarvesh (in Adhar Card Sarvesh Kumar ) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Shanu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Govt. Lko.