Prompt: Generate a Bail Application involving the following key legal details: - CASE: Crime No. 99 of 2021 - DISTRICT: Not available - BAIL APPLICATION: Not available --- Output: IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW Crl. Misc. Case No. (B) Of 2021 Sunil Yadav ...Applicant Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another ....Opposite Parties INDEX Sr.No Particulars Page No. Index 1. Application for waiver of the filing 2. affidavit Application for anticipatory bail 3. under section 438 Cr.P.C. Affidavit in support of application 4. Annexure No. 1 5. The photocopy of the order dated 09.06.2021 passed by this Session Judge, Pratapgarh Annexure No. 2 6. The photo/typed copy of the FIR dated 20.04.2021 ID proof of the deponent 7. Power 8. E-Court fee receipt 9. Lucknow (Pradeep Kumar Singh “Bisen”) Advocate Dated :15.06.2021 Counsel for the applicant Mobile No. 9415288732 AoR No. B/P0262 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW C.M. APPLICATION NO. (W) OF 2021 In Re; Crl. Misc. Case No. (B) of 2021 Sunil Yadav ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. ..........Opposite Party APPLICATION FOR THE WAIVER OF THE REQUIREMENT OF FILING AN AFFIDAVIT The applicants most respectfully beg to submit as under: - That it is most humbly prayed that the application may be taken up and heard, even during the emergent period in the State of Uttar Pradesh resulting from the onslaught of the CORONA Virus. That it is further prayed that the requirement of filing an Affidavit along with the Application(s) may further be dispensed with in view of the Guidelines provided by this Hon’ble High Court. That in view of the guidelines of the High Court the details of the deponent of the affidavit as under Aadhar No. - 878321075948 Card holder name - Sunil Yadav Father’s name - Sri Keshav Prasad Date of Birth - 01.02.1986 Address - Trilokpur, PS – Baghrai, Distt – Pratapgarh Mobile No. - _______________ (Link with adhar No.) - That the deponent further declared that he is the applicant himself and do hereby solemnly affirm that the averments made hereinabove true and correct. That the deponent further declared that after lifting the lockdown, he will be filed hard copy of the bail application along with proper affidavit as per direction of the Hon'ble High Court. Lucknow (Pradeep Kumar Singh “Bisen”) Advocate Dated: 15.06.2021 Counsel for the Applicant IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW Crl. Misc. Case No. (B) Of 2021 Sunil Yadav aged about 35 years son of Shri Ram Kripal resident of Village – Trilokipur, Police Station – Baghrai, District – Pratapgarh ....Applicant Versus State of Uttar Pradesh 1. Ashok Kumar Tripathi, Presiding Officer, Booth No. 2. 12, Trilokpur - B, Police Station – Baghrai, District – Pratapgarh .....Opposite Parties Case Crime No. 99 of 2021 U/s 147, 148, 352, 353, 332, 427, 188, 171F, 395, 412 of I.P.C., 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932 and 139 Public Representative Act, 1951 Police Station – Baghrai District – Pratapgarh APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL UNDER SECTION 438 Cr. P.C. The applicant most respectfully submits as under:- For the facts and reasons mentioned in accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant the bail to the applicant in connection with Case Crime No. 99 of 2021 under Sections 147, 148, 352, 353, 332, 427, 188, 171F, 395, 412 of I.P.C., 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932 and 139 Public Representative Act, 1951 relating to Police Station – Baghrai, District – Pratapgarh, in the interest of Justice. Lucknow (Pradeep Kumar Singh “Bisen”) Advocate Dated : 15.06.2021 Counsel for the applicant Case Crime No. 99 of 2021 U/s 147, 148, 352, 353, 332, 427, 188, 171F, 395, 412 of I.P.C., 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932 and 139 Public Representative Act, 1951 Police Station – Baghrai District – Pratapgarh IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW Crl. Misc. Case No. (B) Of 2021 Sunil Yadav ...Applicant Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another ....Opposite Parties AFFIDAVIT (In support of bail application) I, Sunil Yadav aged about 35 years son of Shri Ram Kripal resident of Village – Trilokipur, Police Station – Baghrai, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Qualification – Intermediate, Occupation – Agriculture, the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- :- That the deponent is the applicant himself in 1. aforesaid application and as such he is fully conversant with the facts of the case, deposed to hereunder. The photo verification slip issued by the Awadh Bar Association, Lucknow of the deponent is affixed on the affidavit and his ID proof is enclosed with the affidavit. That the concerned police is intended to arrest to 2. the applicant with connection to the First Information Report dated 20.04.2021 lodged by the opposite party No. 2 bearing Case Crime No. 99 of 2021 under Sections 147, 148, 352, 353, 332, 427, 188, 171F, 395, 412 of I.P.C., 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932 and 139 Public Representative Act, 1951 relating to Police Station – Baghrai, District – Pratapgarh. That the applicant, further declared that the 3. first information report lodged by the opposite party No. 2 under Sections 147, 148, 352, 353, 332, 427, 188, 171F, 395, 412 of I.P.C., 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932 and 139 Public Representative Act, 1951, which is not fallen under Section 438(6) of Cr.P.C.. That this is the First anticipatory bail 4. application before this Hon'ble Court, which is being filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., before this Hon'ble High Court and no any other anticipatory bail is being before this Hon'ble High Court or at Allahabad or before any other High Court in India, pertaining to the same subject matter. That the applicant has moved anticipatory bail 5. application bearing No. 1207 of 2021 filed before the Session Judge, Pratapgarh by the applicant has been rejected vide order dated 09.06.2021 passed by the court concerned. No other any anticipatory bail application pending before this Hon'ble High Court or rejected by this Hon'ble High Court. The photocopy of the order dated 09.06.2021 passed by this Session Judge, Pratapgarh is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That the opposite party No. 2 lodged the First 6. Information Report dated 20.04.2021 against unknown persons regarding the demolition at Booth No. 12, Trilokpur, District – Pratapgarh regarding incident dated 19.04.2021, bearing Case Crime No. 99 of 2021 under Sections 147, 148, 352, 353, 332, 427, 188, 171F of I.P.C., 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932 and 139 Public Representative Act, 1951 relating to Police Station – Baghrai, District – Pratapgarh. The photo/typed copy of the FIR dated 20.04.2021 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 02 to this affidavit. That the case of prosecution in a nutshell as that 7. the opposite party No. 2 was Presiding Officer in Panchayat Election held on 19.04.2021 at Booth No. 12, Trilokpur, District – Pratapgarh. The poll was going well till 5.25 PM. When the concerned Sub Divisional Officer and Sector Magistrate came at booth thereafter several persons entered in polling booth and demolished the entire booth alongwith the ballot box and other papers. That here it is relevant to mention that there is 8. no any averments made in the first information report regarding the loot of the ballot box but later on it has been also added by the concerned police. That thereafter on 22.04.2021, the concerned 9. police recovered the 2 ballot box and arrested the 13 accused persons relating to the aforesaid case crime. That the arrested accused has named the applicant 10. and stated that the applicant was also present at time of incident while the applicant was not present at incident place. That on the basis of the recovery memo the Section 11. 395 & 412 of I.P.C. has been added in the case. That humble applicant further stated that the 12. nothing has been recovered from the applicant in any manner but the concerned police also charged under Section 395 & 412 of IPC. That it is most relevant to mention here that the 13. applicant has not committed any offense as alleged by the opposite party No. 2 in his first information report dated 20.04.2021. That the first information report has been lodged 14. by the opposite party No. 2 against the several persons and he has been named by the concerned police. That the real fact of the case is that the 15. applicant was not supporter of the present winning candidate of the Village Pradhan due to which he has been targeted and falsely implicated. That when the voter have been polarized in favour 16. of the applicant’s candidate thereafter the winning candidate, create the nuisance in the election and the concerned police later on named the applicant in the said case crime. That the opposite party No. 2 named the applicant 17. in the first information report for extraneous reasons for harassing the applicant and his family members due to village party-bandi. That the opposite party No. 2 falsely implicated 18. the applicant, through collusion of the present village pradhan & police personnel in the said crime, which is baseless and concocted story. That since the applicant has not committed any 19. offence as alleged, hence no offence under Sections 147, 148, 352, 353, 332, 427, 188, 171F, 395, 412 of I.P.C., 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932 and 139 Public Representative Act, 1951 relating to Police Station – Baghrai, District – Pratapgarh, is made against him. That there was no any independent witnesses 20. produced by the informant, on said place moreover if any witness is produced by the informant they are interested witnesses. That it is also relevant to mention here that 21. there is no case is made out against the applicant as alleged in the said FIR and applicant has never committed any offence as alleged. That the applicant has no concerned with the 22. alleged incident, he has also been implicated due to malafide intention of the Opposite party No. 2. That the applicant is common person and no any 23. criminal history or not involves any criminal activity. That the impugned first information report has 24. been lodged by the Opposite party No. 2 against the applicant on the basis of wrong facts and the applicant believed that the concerned police would be arrest the applicant. That the applicant has no any criminal history and 25. the allegations against the applicant is false and baseless. That if the applicant will arrested, the applicant 26. will suffer irreparable loss and injury as the applicant has not committed any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant 27. absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the 28. security and bond and also undertake that he will be never misused liberty of anticipatory bail. That in view of the above, it would be expedient 29. and necessary in the interest of justice that the applicant be enlarged on anticipatory bail, during pendency of case. Lucknow Date: 15.06.2021 Deponent VERIFICATION I, the deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of para 1 to of this affidavit are true to my personal knowledge. No part of its is false and nothing material has been concealed. So, help me “GOD”. Lucknow Date : 15.06.2021 Deponent I, identify the deponent, who has I, do hereby declare that the person making this affidavit and alleging himself to be the deponent is known to me from the perusal of papers and I am satisfied that he is the same person. Advocate Solemnly affirmed before me on at A.M./P.M. by the deponent, named above, who has been identified by Sri P. K. Singh “Bisen”, Advocate, High Court, Lucknow, Bench, Lucknow. Enrolment No. 2933/2003 resident of “Narsinghpur House”, 25 Preet Vihar Colony, Raiberelly Road, Lucknow. I, have satisfied myself by examining the deponent that he understands the contents of this affidavit, which have been read over and explained by me. OATH COMMISSIONER IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW Crl. Misc. Case No. (B) Of 2021 Sunil Yadav ...Applicant Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another ....Opposite Parties Annexure No. 2