The Allahabad High Court has refused to order the release of Bahubali Umakant Yadav’s son Dinesh Yadav and two others Vikas Yadav and Anil Yadav on anticipatory bail.
A Single Bench of Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc anticipatory bail application filed by Dinesh Yadav and 2 Others.
The application has been moved on behalf of the applicants Dinesh Yadav, Anil Yadav & Vikash Yadav seeking anticipatory bail in Case under Sections 323, 504, 506,325, 308 IPC, Police Station Deedarganj, District Azamgarh.
The prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R is that on 03.09.2020, four named accused persons including the applicants made assault upon the informant and his son Sunil and Neeraj with lathi and danda and they sustained grievous injuries. After investigation, now charge sheet has been filed in the case.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of their arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. The investigation of the case has been completed and a charge sheet has been filed.
It has been submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.
It is further submitted that in Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application, the applicants were granted anticipatory bail by the coordinate Bench of the Court vide order dated 05.11.2020 and they have not misused the said liberty.
It is further submitted that as a matter of fact, there is a cross case in this matter and F.I.R has been lodged from the accused side also and investigation of the case is going on.
It is next submitted that as many as three persons got injuries from the accused side by the informant side and they have been medically examined.
It is further submitted that in the F.I.R and in the statement of the injured, no specific role of assault has been assigned to any of the accused applicants.
It is also submitted that the applicants have no criminal history to their credit and they are entitled for anticipatory bail.
A.G.A opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has vehemently submitted that injured, Sobhawati has sustained grievous injuries in the matter.
It is further submitted that fracture was caused in the left parietal bone and all the three injured persons have sustained a number of injuries and injured Tilakdhari Yadav has also sustained contusion in the left parietal region and all the injured persons have been bitterly assaulted by the informant and an active role of the applicants is proved on the basis of the evidence collected by the I.O during the course of investigation.
“Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants, all attending facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that allegations are serious in nature, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants. Prayer made in the application is refused”, the Court observed while disposing the application.
“However, in the last, counsel for the applicants has urged that direction be given to the Court concerned to consider and decide the bail application of the applicants in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825.
Hence, it is observed that the bail application of the applicants, if moved, shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil case (supra).
It is further directed that the Court concerned while considering the bail application of the applicants in the light of Satender Kumar Antil case (supra), shall pass an order strictly in compliance of the directions given in the aforesaid judgement by the Supreme Court, in letter and spirit, particularly complying with the order dated 21.3.2023 of the Apex Court in the aforesaid matter”, the order reads.