Pawan Kumar Yadav and another v. State of U.P. and
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:135548 Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6541 of 2024 Applicant :- Ramachal Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Babhru Vahan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. Supplementary affidavit filed today, on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. Heard Shri Babhru Vahan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and 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 applicant Ramachal Yadav in Case Crime No. 98 of 2024 registered under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 307, 427 I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 at Police Station Kotwali, District Gorakhpur with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the aforesaid Case Crime has been registered by one Kallu Yadav, respondent no. 3, against the applicant and other persons on 15.04.2024 for the incident dated 13.04.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that perusal of the FIR itself clearly reveals that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a protection has been extended to main accused by Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7525 of 2024 (Pawan Kumar Yadav and another versus State of U.P. and 3 others). It is further submitted that it is a case of no injury. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that the applicant is cooperating in the investigation and undertakes that he will cooperate in the investigation in future also, failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the present anticipatory bail application, the criminal history of the applicant was inadvertently not mentioned and the same has been filed by way of the supplementary affidavit. The Criminal history of the applicant is as follows: 1. Case Crime No. 68 of 1994, under Sections 323, 353, 504 and 506 IPC Police Station Khajani, District-Gorakhpur, in which the applicant has been enlarged on bail by the competent court. 2. Case Crime No. 458 of 1997, under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Bansgaon, District-Gorakhpur, in which applicant has been enlarged on bail by the competent Court. 3. Case Crime No. 30 of 1999, under Section 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station-Mahuli, District-Sant Kabir Nagar, in which the petitioner has also been enlarged on bail by the comptent Court. 4. Case Crime No. 33 of 1999, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 302/149, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Bansgaon, District- Gorakhpur, in which the applicant has been enlarged on bail by the competent Court. 5. Case Crime No. 44 of 1999, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Antisocial Activities Act, Police Station- Bansgaon, District-Gorakhpur in which the applicant has been enlarged on bail by the competent Court. 6. Case Crime No. 506 of 1999, under Section 110 G of Cr.P.C. Police Station-Bansgaon, District-Gorakhpur. 7. Case Crime No. 216 of 2000, under Sectio 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station-Belghat, District-Gorakhpur in which the appicant has been acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. 3 Gorakhpur, vide order dated 28.03.2006 passed in sessions trial No. 273 of 2004. 8. Case Crime No. 222 of 2000, under Sections 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station-Belghat, District-Gorakhpur, in which the applicant has been acquitted by the leared Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. 3, Gorakhpur vide order dated 28.03.2006, passed in Joint Session Trial No. 22 of 2005. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application submitting that the applicant is a man of criminal antecedents and against him eight criminal cases have been registered against the applicant in different Police Stations and as such the present anticipatory bail application is liable to be rejected. Considering the totality of the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant as well as criminal history of the applicant in some of which the applicant has been enlarged on bail and in some cases the applicant has been acquitted by the competent Court , the applicant is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant Ramachal Yadav involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail 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 co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation; (2) 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; and (3) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court. (4) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court. (5) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicants. (6) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. (7) 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 in accordance with law. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
Decision
With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 29.7.2024 pks