Allahabad High Court
Maneesh Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 18 January, 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. - 7913 of 2021
Applicant :- Maneesh Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ghanshyam Yadav,S.A. Siddiqui
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 and 51(a) of AAPDA Prabandhan Act, P.S. Patti, district Pratapgarh.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Vide order dated 28.7.2021, the applicant was granted interim protection by a coordinate Bench of this Court. Gist of the issue involved in the present matter is given in the said order, which is extracted below :
"The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in FIR No.194 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 352, 452, 427, 286, 504, 506, 188, 269 IPC, Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act & Section 51(a) of Aapda Prabandhan Act, P.S. Patti, District Pratapgarh.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the FIR, false allegation has been levelled against the applicant due to personal enmity. It is submitted that 28 persons have been made accused in the FIR and allegations are general in nature. There is no firearm injury upon any person. He has further submitted that on plain reading of the FIR, no case is made out for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.
Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail application but could not dispute the aforesaid contention made by applicant's counsel.
Considering the aforesaid facts, it would be appropriate to pass interim order to the extent that in pursuance of the FIR in question, the accused-applicant shall not be arrested till the next date of listing subject to following conditions:-
(i) That the accused-applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation;
(ii) That the accused-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; and
(iii) That the accused-applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
List this case on 23.08.2021.
Meanwhile, State shall file its objection. "
It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that it is a case of no injury. From perusal of the first information report, it is evident that no case under section 307 I.P.C. is made out. Investigation in this case is pending. The anticipatory bail application of the co-accused Jeetlal and Virendra Singh Yadav have been allowed vide orders contained in Annexure No.3 to the bail application. It is next submitted that due to enmity, 28 persons have been falsely implicated in this case.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made by the applicant's counsel, however, he does not dispute the fact that there is no fire arm injury in this case. applicant has cooperated during investigation.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and having no criminal antecedents, the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the investigation/trial and gravity of offence as also the fact that it is a case of no injury, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case 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, in the event of arrest, the accused applicant Maneesh Yadav shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO/Investigating officer, with the following conditions.
(i) 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 tamper with the evidence;
(ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the concerned SHO/ court;
(iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(iv)The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer/trial court as and when summoned.
(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;
In view of the aforesaid, the anticipatory bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 18.1.2023
kkb/
