# Sanjay Yadav Pradhan v. The State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1297
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-01
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 869 of 2024
- **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-yadav-pradhan-v-the-state-of-u-p-51340
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

G.A., Mahesh Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar Dwivedi

Bail-Merely because applicant has a criminal
history -will not dis-entitle him to be enlarged
on bail.- case of the applicant is on better
footing than the named co-accused Persons.
Bail Application allowed. (E-9)

Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Sanjay Yadav Pradhan Vs. The State of U.P.
1297
court can determine whether the applicant
has reason to believe that he may be so
arrested. Section 438(1), therefore, cannot
be invoked on the basis of vague and
general allegations, as if to arm oneself in
perpetuity
against
a possible
arrest.
Otherwise, the number of applications for
anticipatory bail will be as large as, at any
rate, the adult populace. Anticipatory bail
is a device to secure the individual's
liberty; it is neither a passport to the
commission of crimes nor a shield against
any and all kinds of accusations, likely or
unlikely."

26. Recently again Five Judges
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in case
of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 reaffirmed
the law laid down by the Constitution Bench
in case of Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra)
that belief of arrest of accused should be
based on concrete facts and it cannot be
accepted on the basis of vague averment.

27. In case at hand, FIR of the present
case was lodged in the month of September,
2023 and since then four months have been
passed and till date applicant was not arrested,
therefore, in light of the vague averment made
in paragraph no. 6 of the affidavit filed in
support of the instant anticipatory bail
application with regard to apprehension of
arrest, this Court is of the view that applicant
failed to bring on record any concrete fact and
reason on the basis of which this Court can infer
that he is having apprehension of his arrest in
the instant matter.

28. Further, law is also settled that
power to grant anticipatory bail is an
extraordinary power, however, it is not
necessary to exercise it sparingly only in
exceptional cases but it should be exercised
with
care
and
circumspection.
[see-:
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in case
of Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra)]. In
view of this Court this extraordinary power
should not be exercised in routine manner,
otherwise provisions of pre arrest bail would
become vulnerable.

29. Therefore, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case discussed above, in
my view, the instant anticipatory bail
application filed by the applicant is devoid of
merit and he is not entitled to be released on
anticipatory bail.

30. Accordingly, without expressing
any opinion upon ultimate merits of the
case either ways which may adversely
affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory
bail application filed by the applicant is
hereby dismissed.

31. It is made clear that observations
made in granting anticipatory bail to the
applicant shall not in any way affect the
learned
trial
Judge
in
forming
his
independent
opinion
based
on
the
testimony of the witnesses.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1297
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 869 of 2024

Sanjay Yadav Pradhan ...Applicant
Versus
The State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Arun Sinha, Ram Chandra Singh, Umang
Agarwal
1298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Mahesh Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar Dwivedi

Bail-Merely because applicant has a criminal
history -will not dis-entitle him to be enlarged
on bail.- case of the applicant is on better
footing than the named co-accused Persons.
Bail Application allowed. (E-9)

Cases cited:

1. Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs St. of U.P. &
Anr. [Criminal Appeal No.159 of 2012]

2. Prabhakar Tewari Vs St. of U.P.[AIRONLINE
2020 SC 96]

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh
Pawar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Arun Sinha, learned
counsel for the applicant, Sri Mahesh
Kumar and Sri Sanjeev Kumar Dwivedi,
learned counsel for the complainant,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused
the record.

2. The present bail application has
been filed by accused-applicant seeking
bail in Case Crime No.30 of 2023, under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 34, 120B, 201, 427 I.P.C., Section 3/25 Arms Act
and
Section
5/27
Arms
Act,
P.S.
Musafirkhana, District Amethi.

3. It is alleged in the first information
report that on 27.2.2023 in the evening at
around 7.00 p.m., uncle of the informant
Suresh Yadav and brother Brijesh Yadav
were coming home from Bolero car. On the
way at Dadra Road, before Amar Bahadur
Singh
Degree
college,
two
without
numbered motorcycle stopped the Bolero
car and started making indiscriminate firing
and also hurled crude bombs, due to which,
uncle and brother of the informant died. It
is further alleged that the accused persons
are inimical due to 2015 punchayat
election. In 2016 also, the uncle Suresh
Yadav had received gun shot injuries, in
which Jalaluddin and others were named.

4. Learned counsel for applicant
submits that informant is not an eye
witness. Incident has been narrated by
Shubham Verma. The named accused
persons Vaseer Khan and Jalaluddin have
been enlarged on bail by this Court vide
orders dated 05.01.2024 & 18.01.2024
passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
Nos.13143 of 2023 & 15248 of 2023. He
submits that apart from the above named
two co-accused persons, co-accused Manoj
Yadav and Manish Yadav alias Kallu who
were not named in the F.I.R. have also been
enlarged on bail by this Court as well as
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
orders dated 08.01.2024 & 06.12.2023
passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
Nos.10378 of 2023 & 12350 of 2023.

It is contended on behalf of the
applicant that there is absolutely no
material against the applicant except the
information given by a secret informer on
parcha No.1 of the case diary that in the
influence of the applicant Rahul Yadav
commits the criminal activity. He submits
that his case is on better footing than the
named accused persons namely, Jalaluddin
and Vaseer Khan. The applicant is in jail
since 04.03.2023.

5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned
counsel for the complainant have opposed
the bail prayer. They have submitted that
applicant has criminal history of 17 cases
and, therefore, he is not entitled to be
enlarged on bail.

6. Rebutting the aforesaid, learned
counsel for the applicant submits that he
2 All. Ranjeet Vs. State of U.P.
1299
has explained the criminal history in para
47 of the bail application. He is on bail in
all the 17 cases. He submits that merely
because applicant has a criminal history
will not dis-entitle him to be enlarged on
bail. He has relied on judgment of Supreme Court
in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs.
State of U.P. & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No.159 of
2012]. He submits that role of the accused in the
particular case has to be seen while granting bail,
emphasis is on para 6. He has further relied on the
judgment of Supreme Court in the case of
Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
[AIRONLINE 2020 SC 96].

7. On due consideration to the submissions
advanced, perusal of the record as also the bail orders
of the co-accused persons named above who have
been enlarged on bail, period of incarceration gone
into by the applicant and the explanation of the
criminal history so also the judgment of Supreme
Court passed in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi &
Prabhakar Tewari (supra), prima facie, this Court is
of the opinion that case of the applicant is on better
footing than the named co-accused persons
Jalaluddin and Vaseer Khan, without expressing any
opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case
for enlarging the applicant on bail.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant Sanjay Yadav Pradhan be
released on bail in aforesaid case crime number
subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two
reliable sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the
following conditions:

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the
evidence during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/
intimidate the prosecution witness.

(iii) 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.

(iv) The applicant shall file an
undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any
adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when
the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of
this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to
treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in
accordance with law.

(v) The applicant shall remain present
before the trial court on each date fixed, either
personally or through his counsel. In case of his
absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may
proceed against him under Section 229-A of the
Indian Penal Code.

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the
liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his
presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is
issued and the applicant fails to appear before the
court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the
trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in
accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the
Indian Penal Code.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1299
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHNA PAHAL, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438
Cr.P.C. No. 872 of 2024

Ranjeet ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Naveen Tiwari, Sri Ritik Raj

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-Section 438-Allegation that the