Allahabad High Court
Sahendra Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 February, 2023
Bench: Shiv Shanker Prasad
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12957 of 2022
Applicant :- Sahendra Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pravin Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 373 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 354-B IPC, Police Station - Phoolpur, District - Varanasi, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the abovementioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation the Investigating Officer altered the section 354-B IPC from Section 354-A IPC when as per him no offence is made out under Section 354-A IPC. It is also submitted that the FIR in question is highly belated as the alleged incident is said to have occurred on 14.11.2021 but the FIR has been lodged on 16.11.2021. Further submission is that the FIR in the present case is totally motivated and fabricated in fact the same has been lodged with a motive to harass the applicant. It is also stated that it is pertinent to mention here that another suit is pending between the parties before the Court of Tehsildar Pindra, Varanasi which is Case No. T202114700207678 (Sheela Vs. Kalawati). Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegation made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon length. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has cooperated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
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 applicant.
On due consideration to the arguments advanced 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 is 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 applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
In view of above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.
Let the applicant- Sahendra Yadav, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant shall appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;
5. 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;
6. The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him/her/them in accordance with law.
It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 8.2.2023
SK Srivastava
