Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 133897 (ALL)

VIKAS @ VANSH BAHADUR YADAV v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. HOME LKO AND ANOTHER

ABAIL/402/2025 · 2025-04-15

Manish Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20945 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 402 of 2025 Applicant :- Vikas @ Vansh Bahadur Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Firoz Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for opposite party-State. Notice to opposite party no.2 stands dispensed with. 2. First anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to case crime No.87 of 2016, under Sections 3/5A/8 Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughters Act & Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, P.S. Kohdaur, District Pratapgarh. 3. As per contents of first information report which has been lodged on 28.06.2016, applicant was apprehended from the spot with beef and the carcass of cattle. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that applicant was not apprehended from spot but subsequently. It is submitted that the allegation even otherwise pertained to year 2016 in which charge-sheet was filed on 25.07.2016 with active cooperation of applicant during the course of investigation. It is submitted that applicant did not have any knowledge with regard to issuance of summons, which has never been received by him and therefore he was unaware of any warrant being issued against him. It is submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed anticipatory bail application with the submission that after issuance of summons, applicant did not present himself before the Court concerned leading to issuance of non-bailable warrant issued against him. It is however admitted that applicant had cooperated during the course of investigation whereafter charge-sheet was filed and that maximum sentence with regard to provision is below seven years. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it appears that almost nine years have passed since lodging of the first information report whereafter applicant admittedly cooperated during course of investigation leading to filing of charge- sheet. Sections imputed against him have maximum sentence of less than seven years. Learned counsel for applicant has also provided an undertaking of applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial. 7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the liberty of the applicant may be protected in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98. 8. In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant- Vikas @ Vansh Bahadur Yadav, shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid Case Crime number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) 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/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (ii) that the applicant(s) shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iii) that the applicant(s) shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (iv) that the applicant(s) shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (v) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail. Any other reasonable restrictions/ conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed. 9. 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. 10. The application stands allowed. Order Date :- 15.4.2025 Subodh/- Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench