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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:976

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12358 of 2024

Applicant :- Pravesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar,Salilendu Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, the instant anticipatory bail application may be finally, disposed off.

¶7

Heard Sri Salilendu Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I for the Staterespondent.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 522 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 506, 448, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 34 IPC, Police Station Bhogaon, District Mainpuri, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, till the conclusion of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is nephew of the informant and on the basis of false allegation he has been made accused in the present matter alongwith other accused persons.

¶10

He further submitted that applicant received the property in question after partition and as he was the owner of the property, therefore, he executed the sale deed of the property and therefore, it cannot be said that he committed any offence.

¶11

He further submitted that even present dispute appears to be civil dispute and informant did not challenge the sale deed executed by the applicant before any civil court and he directly lodged the FIR of the present case.

¶12

He further submitted that applicant is having no previous criminal history to his credit and investigation of the case is

¶13

pending and police is continuously trying to arrest the applicant and therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant should be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the fact that informant did not challenge the alleged sale deed executed by the applicant before any civil court.

¶15

He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and investigation of the case with regard to the applicant is still pending.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record of the case.

¶17

However, as per allegation applicant by playing fraud and cheating executed the sale deed of the property which as per prosecution belonged to the informant but informant is the real uncle of the applicant and as per applicant, he received the alleged property after partition and therefore, he was rightful owner of the property and therefore, if, he executed the sale deed of the property then it cannot be said that he committed any illegality. The contention of applicant cannot be brushed aside at this stage.

¶18

Further, prima facie, present dispute appears to be civil dispute and informant did not challange the sale deed executed by the applicant before any civil court.

¶19

Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and apprehension of arrest raised by him cannot be disbelieved at this stage, considering the fact that investigation against him is still pending.

¶20

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in this case, till conclusion of trial.

¶21

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

¶22

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Pravesh Yadav, involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding

¶23

Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶24

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

¶25

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;

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

Order Date :- 3.1.2025

¶33

Ankita

¶34

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

Abhiramjeet Yadav vs State of U.P.

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