High Court
Case Details
“Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 305 of 2024, under sections 118(2), 288 of the B.N.S., Police Station-Bijnor, District-Lucknow. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated. He added that infact the allegation, which is levelled in the first information report itself, is evident that the same is an accident and not an offence as there is no mens-era apparent. He next added that the statement of the victim itself is enough to show that she herself went away with the applicant with her own will and thereafter, while returning from the shop, some accident took place, wherein the fire crackers burst and the victim received injuries and as result of infection, one of the hands of the victim was amputated. He submits that the first information report has been lodged after four days of the incident and that too, is after thought. He also submitted that the applicant is always ready to cooperate with the investigation proceedings and there is no complaint of any kind that he is avoiding or absconding from the investigation proceedings. He next submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and there is an acute apprehension that the applicant will be arrested by the police without there being any fault and thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid. He has emphasized on the statement of the injured and submits that the injured has named the present applicant and there is specific allegation against him and therefore, the applicant is not entitled for any relief. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the first information report is lodged after four days of the incident and from studying the whole story of the prosecution, prima-facie, it appears that some accident took place thereafter, the first information report has been lodged due to anonymity. Further the applicant has no previous criminal history and it has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the State that the applicant is not cooperating in the investigation proceedings. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds it a fit case for grant of interim anticipatory bail. Accordingly, till the next date of listing, the present applicant-Vikas @ Chhotu Yadav, shall be released forthwith, in case of his arrest, in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two solvent 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 chargesheet 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. Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week. If the steps are taken, the office shall proceed accordingly. List/put up this matter in the week commencing 13.01.2025. In the meantime, learned counsel for the State as well as opposite party no. 2 shall file their counter affidavits.” State counsel has failed to demonstrate from the counter affidavit that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to submit any fact that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Vikas @ Chhotu Yadav till disposal of the trial subject to 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 the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this order. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Shravan
“Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 305 of 2024, under sections 118(2), 288 of the B.N.S., Police Station-Bijnor, District-Lucknow. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated. He added that infact the allegation, which is levelled in the first information report itself, is evident that the same is an accident and not an offence as there is no mens-era apparent. He next added that the statement of the victim itself is enough to show that she herself went away with the applicant with her own will and thereafter, while returning from the shop, some accident took place, wherein the fire crackers burst and the victim received injuries and as result of infection, one of the hands of the victim was amputated. He submits that the first information report has been lodged after four days of the incident and that too, is after thought. He also submitted that the applicant is always ready to cooperate with the investigation proceedings and there is no complaint of any kind that he is avoiding or absconding from the investigation proceedings. He next submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and there is an acute apprehension that the applicant will be arrested by the police without there being any fault and thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid. He has emphasized on the statement of the injured and submits that the injured has named the present applicant and there is specific allegation against him and therefore, the applicant is not entitled for any relief. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the first information report is lodged after four days of the incident and from studying the whole story of the prosecution, prima-facie, it appears that some accident took place thereafter, the first information report has been lodged due to anonymity. Further the applicant has no previous criminal history and it has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the State that the applicant is not cooperating in the investigation proceedings. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds it a fit case for grant of interim anticipatory bail. Accordingly, till the next date of listing, the present applicant-Vikas @ Chhotu Yadav, shall be released forthwith, in case of his arrest, in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two solvent 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 chargesheet 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. Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week. If the steps are taken, the office shall proceed accordingly. List/put up this matter in the week commencing 13.01.2025. In the meantime, learned counsel for the State as well as opposite party no. 2 shall file their counter affidavits.” State counsel has failed to demonstrate from the counter affidavit that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to submit any fact that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Vikas @ Chhotu Yadav till disposal of the trial subject to 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 the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this order. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Shravan