Allahabad High Court
Rajendra Kumar Yadav @ R.K. Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 January, 2023
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2218 of 2021
Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Yadav @ R.K. Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
with
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 681 of 2021
Applicant :- Anuj Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in FIR No. 0795 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 354, 354A, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
On 04.02.2021, the following order has been passed:-
"Connect with Anticipatory Bail Application No. 681 of 2021.
Implication of the applicant under the alleged offences appears to be on account of matrimonial dispute.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the allegations made are absolutely false. He has been implicated for ulterior motives and to pressurize him.
In view of the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and anothers., (2014) 8 SCC 272, before passing final order, the Court considers it appropriate to hear the opposite party no.2.
Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 returnable within four weeks.
List this case on 8th March, 2021.
Till the next date of listing, in case of his arrest, the applicant, Rajendra Kumar Yadav @ R. K. Yadav, shall be enlarged on interim anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0795 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 354, 354A, 506 I.P.C and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Muradnagar, District Ghazibad, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police Station/court concerned with the following conditions-
(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police office as and when required;
(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office;
(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
(v) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
The Investigating Officer will continue with the investigation and will not be affected by this order.
A copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this court shall also be produced before the S.S.P concerned by the applicant who shall ensure compliance of this order after due verification from official website of this court. "
The same protection was also given to Anuj Yadav vide order dated 18.01.2021.
Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that applicant namely Rajendra Kumar Yadav is the father-in-law and applicant namely Anuj Yadav is the Jeth of the daughter of the informant. He further submits that the dispute is matrimonial in nature. 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. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have never misused the liberty as granted to them. He further submits that applicants undertake 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.
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.
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 applicant are liable to 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 the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Rajendra Kumar Yadav @ R.K. Yadav and Anuj Yadav be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
2. 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;
3. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
4. that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
5. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
6. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
7. 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.
Order Date :- 17.1.2023
Arti
