Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Yadav And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 April, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4158 of 2023
Applicant :- Rajesh Yadav And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Raghvendra Prakash
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Raghvendra Prakash, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Rohit Dubey, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No.95 of 2020, registered under Sections 498-A, 308, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, at Police Station Shidhari, District Azamgarh with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and husband of the informant Mithilesh Yadav along with other members of the family are said to have assaulted the informant on 17.3.2020, thereby causing grievous injuries to her.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. The FIR was instituted under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The said FIR is delayed by about more than three months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has further stated that the injury report dated 18.3.2020 indicates a fracture in her cranium, but the said injury report has been taken note of after lodging of the FIR and Section 308 I.P.C. has been added. Learned counsel has stated that the applicants, who happen to be brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the informant, live separately to the husband of the informant.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act was instituted prior to the FIR on 4.2.2020 by the husband of the informant and the said address mentioned therein does not match with the address of the applicants. The case of the applicants is at different footing to the husband of the informant. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicants. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.
8. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Rajesh Yadav and Sunita Devi be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(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 them 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 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;
(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
10. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
[Krishan Pahal, J.]
Order Date :- 17.4.2023
Vikas
