Allahabad High Court
Yogendra Kumar Soni @ Yogendra Soni vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 26 September, 2024
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66936 Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1877 of 2024 Applicant :- Yogendra Kumar Soni @ Yogendra Soni Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jay Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
As per the office report, respondent No.2 has died.
The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in FIR/ Case Crime No.421 of 2011, under sections 147, 148, 186, 188, 283, 307, 323, 332, 336, 341, 353, 427, 504, 506, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., 7 CLA Act, P.S. Jalalpur district Ambedkar Nagar.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This Court while granting interim protection vide order dated 21.08.2024 has passed the following order:-
"1.The applicant has moved the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.421 of 2011 under sections 147, 148, 186, 188, 283, 307, 323, 332, 336, 341, 353, 427, 504, 506, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., 7 CLA Act, P.S. Jalalpur district Ambedkar Nagar.
2.Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3.It is alleged in the prosecution case that on 26.3.2011 at about 11.30a.m., Arvind Pandey along with Amit Verma, Sonu and Rohit were leading a procession of 250 persons regarding death of Mewalal son of Hansraj relating to case crime No.391 of 2011 under sections 323, 504, 506, 379, 302 I.P.C., 3(2)V SC/ST Act, P.S. Jalalpur, district Ambedkarpur and the dead body of Mewalal was being carried in tractor trolley. The procession was going to village Imlipur Pethya and as soon as they reached to the gate of police station Jalalpur, the procession was stopped and the body of the aforesaid deceased Mewa Lal was kept on the road in front of main gate of Jalalpur police station. The entire road was held at ransom and the public order was disturbed.
It is further alleged that Arvind Pandey was demanding Rs.20 lacs as compensation in an agitated state while delivering speech and was threatening that they would not move away till the compensation is awarded. The S.D.M., C.O., Jalalpur along with police team were trying to douse the tension and told that Section 144 CrPC has been imposed and their blatant exhibition is illegal. When the police administration was trying to talk with the persons who were present at the spot, the accused Arvind Pandey exhorted to kill the policemen on which the protesters started pelting stones and bricks and then the protesters entered the premises of the police station and police vehicles etc were also vandalized. Lathi charge was conducted to ensure maintenance of peace. It is alleged that several police personnel sustained injuries besides damage of the furniture etc.
4.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is not named in the first information report. No specific role has been assigned to any accused person of causing injury to police personnel although 12 police personnel are said to have been injured. Out of 12, nine have received simple injuries. Injuries of three injured were kept under observation, however, there is nothing on record to suggest that any police personnel has received any grievous injury. There is no X-ray report on record. None of the injured has been admitted in the hospital. The statement of the complainant was recorded on the same day.
Subsequently, on 2.10.2011, a second statement of the complainant was recorded where he made improvement while alleging that caste related words were used and as such provisions of SC/ST Act have been invoked against the named accused Arvind Pandey. Even, in the second statement the applicant is not named.
On 6.10.2011, third statement of the complainant was recorded after more than 6 1/2 months of the incident where he took the names of 18 more persons by making further improvement, including the name of the applicant. On the basis of third statement, offence under section 307 I.P.C. has been added as in this statement, it has been alleged that the co-accused Arvind Pandey has tried to strangulate the complainant in order to kill him, although there is a specific mention in the statement that the injured did not get himself medically examined.
5.It is submitted that charge sheet was filed in the year 2012 itself. The applicant was residing at the same address prior to the incident. He has not changed his address as yet. He was not given any notice under Section 41 CrPC. It is vehemently argued that the applicant has no knowledge of filing of the charge sheet in the aforesaid offences. In support of his contention, learned counsel has drawn this Court's attention to the order sheet of the trial court filed along with the supplementary affidavit which is taken on record.
It is submitted that the applicant is innocent. The applicant has never absconded. He undertakes to cooperate in the trial.
The co-accused Shrawan Kumar has been granted interim protection by this Court vide order dated 7.8.2024 passed in Anticipatory Bail No.1743 of 2024.
6.Learned A.G.A. has opposed the contention and submitted that vide order dated 4.7.2024, proceedings under section 82 CrPC have been initiated. It is submitted by learned A.G.A. whether the applicant has been served or not, report in this regard can be summoned from the trial court.
On the last date, when the case was listed, time was granted to him to seek instructions, however, today, he could not provide any material to suggest that the applicant was ever served the summons/notice, or having knowledge of this case.
7.Two weeks' time is allowed to file objections/ counter affidavit.
8.Issue notice to respondent No.2.
9.List on 11.9.2024. Let a report be summoned from the trial court as to whether any summon/notice has ever been served upon the applicant.
10.Considering the submission advanced and perusal of the record, the applicant has no criminal history, three statements of the complainant, including the third statement where for the first time he has taken the name of the applicant besides others, undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory 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 trial.
11.In view of the above. the accused applicant is directed to surrender before trial court within ten days from today. The accused applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail by the trial court on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, 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 court;
(iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;
It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses."
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused Dharmendra Kumar Upadhyay who has assigned the similar role has been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 18.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.1884 of 2024. Applicant seeks parity with the bail order of aforesaid co-accused. He submits that applicant has no criminal history.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the fact that applicant has no criminal history so also the fact that applicant seeks parity with the bail order of co-accused Dharmendra Kumar Upadhyay (supra) and also the reasons assigned in the order dated 21.08.2024, the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 21.08.2024 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.
In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed.
Order Date :- 26.9.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-