Shivshankar Yadav v. State of U.P

Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State, opposite party-1.

Perused the record.

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Shiv Shanker Yadav seeking his enlargement on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 57B of 2006 under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120-B, 34 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Police Station- Reoti, District Ballia, during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Case No. 823 of 2023 (State Vs. Kaushal Kumar Ojha) under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Police Station- Reoti, District Ballia, now pending in the Court of Special Judge (Anti Corruption Act)/Special Court-D, Varanasi.

Learned counsel for applicant contends that 51 F.I.Rs. were lodged against different accused. The sum and substance of the allegations in all the F.I.Rs. is same. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant contends that case of present applicant is similar and identical to that of accused Baijnath Prasad, who is involved in Case Crime No. 45A of 2006 under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477a, 120B/34 I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Sukhpura, District-Ballia. It is then contended that similarly situate and circumstanced accused Baijnath Prasad has already been given the benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 20.04.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 14545 of 2023 (Baijnath Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and another). On the above premise, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicants that case of present applicant is similar and identical to that of aforementioned accused. There is no such distinguishing feature, on the basis of which, the case of present applicant could be so distinguished from aforementioned accused so as to discernible him from the benefit of anticipatory bail. It is thus urged that in view of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the order dated 20.04.2023, the applicant is also liable to be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Even otherwise, applicant-Shivshankar Yadav is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicants have duly co-operated during course of investigation therefore, no application was filed by the Investigating Officer before court concerned for issuing non- bailable warrant or coercive process against applicant during the pendency of investigation. No non-bailable warrant/coercive process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against applicant by court below during the pendency of trial either. The police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has been submitted. As such the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystalized. However, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant contends that liberty of applicant be protected by extending the benefit of anticipatory bail during the pendency of trial. In case the applicant is granted the benefit of anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the same and shall co-operate with the trial.

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State has vehemently opposed this application for anticipatory bail. He submits that since applicant is a named and charge-sheeted accused, therefore, they do not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, he could not dislodge the factual and equitable submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, gravity and nature of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant and considering the submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicants as noted herein above, coupled with the fact that no such distinguishing circumstance has emerged on record so as to deny anticipatory bail to the applicant, therefore irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to present application for anticipatory bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, liberty of applicants is liable to be protected. This application for anticipatory bail is therefore liable to be allowed.

As a result, the present application for anticipatory bail is allowed.

In view of above, in the event of arrest, applicant-Shivshankar Yadav shall be released on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 57B of 2006 under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120- B, 34 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Police Station- Reoti, District Ballia, on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Court with the following conditions:- (i) 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; (ii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned. (iii). In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants. Order Date :- 26.7.2024 Arshad