Allahabad High Court
Yogesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 January, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2074
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12423 of 2024
Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Mishra,Suvansit Kumar Jaiswal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Himanshu Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kartikey Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Pranshu Kumar, 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 applicant in Complaint Case No.1265 of 2019, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C. at Police Station- Jamuna Par, District- Mathura, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that co-accused persons, Surendra Singh, Atendra Singh and Mohar Singh, have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.9336 of 2024. Therefore, the present applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. There are two more cases assigned to the applicant, which are bailable. Subsequent to the present case, one more case has been instituted against the applicant by the same informant. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he will cooperate in the trial failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.
5. The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by them.
6. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 coupled with the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.
8. In view of the above, let the accused-applicant- Yogesh Kumar be released forthwith in the aforesaid complaint case (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 applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). 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 or tamper with the evidence;
(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi). that the applicant 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 concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
9. 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 :- 6.1.2025
Vikas
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
