Sonu @ Sunil Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12495 of 2023 Applicant :- Sonu @ Sunil Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghubir Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record.

¶2Heard Sri Ajeet Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Raghubir Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Amit Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material available on record.

¶3The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No. 247 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Etmadaulla, District Agra, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶4At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants has claimed parity with the co-accused Tampoli @ Top Singh, who has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.4425 of 2023 vide order dated 15.05.2023. Since the case of the applicants is at par with the co-accused person, who has already been granted anticipatory bail, the applicants are also entitled for the same on the ground of parity. The criminal history assigned to the applicants has been explained by means of supplementary affidavit filed today in Court.

¶5The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned AGA. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him.

¶6Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Apex Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶7Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶8In the event of arrest of the applicants, Sonu @ Sunil Yadav, Chilu @ Anil Kumar Yadav and Sethhi @ Mukesh Kumar Yadav involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory 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:- i. that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii. 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; iii. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; iv. that in case, the charge-sheet is submitted, the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶9In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail of the applicants.

¶10It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. (Justice Krishan Pahal) Order Date :- 8.12.2023 Siddhant High Court of Judicature at Allahabad