Allahabad High Court
Mulayam Singh Yadav Alias Mulayam ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 27 February, 2023
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 508 of 2023
Applicant :- Mulayam Singh Yadav Alias Mulayam Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ghanshyam Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
The applicant has moved the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.194 of 2020 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 352, 452, 427, 286, 504, 506, 188, 269 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 51(a) of Aapda Prabanchan Act, P.S.. Patti, district Pratapgarh.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the co-accused Jeetlal alias Pappu Yadav, Virendra Singh Yadav, Rajesh Kumar alias Lavkesh Sharma and Arvind Kumar Yadav have been enlarged on anticipatory bail by Coordinate Bench of this court vide orders contained in Annexures 3 to 6 to the affidavit filed in support of the application. The applicant claims parity.
It is submitted that it is a case of no fire arm injury. General role has been assigned against the applicant. The applicant is named in the first information report.
It is further submitted that no case under section 307 I.P.C. is made out.
Learned counsel undertakes on behalf of the applicant that the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made by the applicant's counsel, however, does not dispute the ground of parity.
Considering the fact that the co-accused named above have been enlarged on anticipatory bail, the applicant has explained the criminal history in para 18 of the affidavit, charge sheet against the present applicant has not been filed in the court, expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the investigation and gravity of offence, I am of the opinion that in the event of arrest, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in this case on the ground of parity, in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, subject to his cooperation in the investigation.
In view of the above as also keeping in view of the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC OnLine 98, it is provided that till filing of the police report, in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/S.H.O. concerned.
The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation/trial and he will not influence the witnesses. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer /I.O./ S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.
In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this order.
In view of the aforesaid, the anticipatory bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 27.2.2023
kkb/
