Dinesh Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11035 of 2023 Applicant :- Dinesh Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Yadav,Pavan Kishore Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶3Apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.0497 of 2023, under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar, the present anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicants - Dinesh Yadav, Raju Kumar Yadav and Umesh Yadav seeking anticipatory bail.

¶4Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that on 24.5.2023 at about 3:00 p.m., four named accused persons including the present applicant stopped the informant on a public road and made an assault upon him with the aid of lathi, danda, kicks and fists, who sustained grievous injuries in the incident. F.I.R. was lodged on 25.5.2023 and investigation started and now charge-sheet has been submitted into the matter.

¶5It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of their arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. They have been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. It is further submitted that no specific role of assault has been assigned to to the present applicants. Only general role has been assigned to all the accused. It is further submitted that although the injury report reveals that six injures have been caused to the injured, but all the injuries are simple in nature. As a matter of fact, no bony fracture has been found on the person of the injured. It is further submitted that the co-accused Ram Baran Yadav has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 10.8.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.9068 of 2023. It is further submitted that the applicants have no criminal history to their credit. The applicants have been cooperative during the course of investigation and now after submission of charge-sheet, no custodial interrogation is required in this matter from the applicant s as the offences alleged against the applicants are punishable with the imprisonment for a maximum period of seven years and as such they are entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶6Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶7In the present matter, charge-sheet has been submitted. No custodial interrogation is required in this matter. The offences alleged against the applicant are punishable with the imprisonment for a maximum period of seven years.

¶8Although the charge sheet has been submitted in this matter, but in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶9Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till end of the trial in the matter.

¶10The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶11In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter;

(ii) 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 him / her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶12In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicants. Order Date :- 27.10.2023 ss High Court of Judicature at Allahabad