Allahabad High Court
Yuvraj Singh vs State Thru. Cbi/Spe/Lucknow on 18 May, 2022
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 673 of 2022
Applicant :- Yuvraj Singh
Opposite Party :- State Thru. Cbi/Spe/Lucknow
Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Prashant Singh Gaur,Sudhanshu Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Dharmendra Pratap Sinigh, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the first informant as well as perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Criminal Case No. 6453 of 2020 arising out of Crime No. R.C. 0062018A0017, under Sections 120-B r/w 420 and 471 I.P.C. at Police Station- C.B.I./S.P.E./Lucknow, District Lucknow, pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate C.B.I., Lucknow, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that has submitted that the case of the applicant is at par with that of the co-accused person, Sunil Kumar, who has already been granted anticipatory bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.3.2021 passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1624 of 2021. Therefore, the present applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he will cooperate in the investigation failing which the State can move appropriate application for vacation of the interim protection.
The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the first informant. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him, but it has been stated that N.B.W. has been issued against the applicant.
On due consideration to the arguments advance by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant, as an interim measure, is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail on the ground of parity and in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.
In the event of arrest, let the accused-applicant- Yuvraj Singh be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
2. 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;
3. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
4. that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant;
5. that the investigating officer is directed to conclude the investigation in the present case in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this court while considering or deciding the present bail application of the applicant;
6. that the applicant is directed to produce certified copy of this order before the SSP/SP concerned within 10 days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of the present order;
7. that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
8. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
9. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
10. that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial or deciding the regular bail application.
Order Date :- 18.5.2022
Shalini
