Court No. - 68

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL

APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1338 of 2022

Applicant :- Satendra Yadav

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Applicant :- Pt. S.P. Sharma

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

Heard Shri Shashi Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for

the applicant and learned AGA for the State

The applicant has moved the instant anticipatory bail

application as he apprehends arrest in Case Crime

No.355 of 2021, under Sections 420, 504 I.P.C. and

Section 3(1) Da and Dha of Scheduled Casts and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police

Station Prem Nagar District Jhansi.

Shri Shashi Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the

applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely

implicated in the instant case. The applicant was a

bonafide purchaser who had paid the sale consideration

agreed upon between the parties. The informant who

was the vendor had represented to the applicant's wife

that he is the true owner of the disputed parcel of land

and possessed clean and saleable title. He produced

various documents to support his claim. The applicant's

wife was taken in by the aforesaid representations and

executed an agreement to sale. The informant declined

to execute the sale deed. The applicant's wife instituted

a suit for specific performance. In order to defeat the

suit and resile from the agreement to sale, the informant

instituted the criminal proceedings. The instant criminal

proceedings are being leveraged in the civil suit. It is

contended that the ingredients of Section 3(1)(r)(s) of

Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, are not established even from prima

facie perusal of the F.I.R. The applicant did not insult,

intimidate with intent to humiliate the informant at any

public place.

The bar to maintainability of the anticipatory bail

application shall not be applicable to the facts of the

case. Reliance is placed on judgements in Subhash

Kashinath Mahajan Vs. The State of Maharashtra

and others, reported at Manu/SC/0275/2018, Prathvi

Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and others, reported

at Manu/SC/0157/2020, Gopal Mishra Vs. State of

U.P. and 2 others.

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the

applicant does not have any criminal history apart from

this case. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel

for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and

will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings.

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor

influence the witnesses in any manner.

Shri Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned brief holder for the

State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid

submissions from the record. Learned AGA does not

dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any

criminal history apart from this case.

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails

during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu

Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19

Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India).

These circumstances shall also be factored in while

considering bail applications on behalf of accused

persons.

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for

the applicants and hold that the applicants are entitled to

be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

In the light of the preceding discussion and without

making any observations on the merits of the case, the

anticipatory bail application is allowed.

The applicant- Satendra Yadav is granted anticipatory

bail in Case Crime No.355 of 2021, under Sections

420, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) Da and Dha of

Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, Police Station Prem Nagar District

Jhansi, till the submission of the police report on

furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the

like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned

with the following conditions:-

(i) the