Allowed

Rakesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Sept 2018BAIL/11193/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second bail application under CrPC, the High Court observed that the Special Court remained vacant for over a year, delaying the trial. Without adjudging innocence, the Court granted bail, subject to conditions preventing tampering with witnesses and ensuring regular court presence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions to prevent witness tampering and ensure trial cooperation.

Rakesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11193 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sheetala Prasad Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.

¶5

Second bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 1789 of 2016, under sections 354 IPC read with section 3 (1) (W) (i) of S.C. & S.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar during the pendency of trial.The first bail application has been rejected vide order dated 2.5.2017.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with some ulterior motive. The first bail application was rejected vide order dated 2.5.2017 with the specific observation that the court below shall proceed with the trial and conclude the same within four months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. More than one year has elapsed and the trial has not been concluded as the Special Court of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes is lying vacant. The applicant has been languishing in jail since 28.9.2016. The victim has already been examined prior to rejection of the first bail application. She has not supported the prosecution case. The life and liberty of the applicant cannot be slashed on the ground of suspicion. There are remote chances of trial being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. There is material contradiction in the prosecution version which creates serious doubt about the truthfulness and veracity of the case. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer of the applicant contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage. There is sufficient material showing the complicity of the applicant. Long incarceration of the applicant will not assuage the gravamen of the offence. The applicant is involved in the serious offence and in case he is released on bail, he will intimidate and threaten to the prosecution witnesses.

¶9

Considering the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also without expressing any opinion on the merits, it is provided that the applicant Rakesh Kumar Yadav involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶10

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the trial.

¶11

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any

¶12

adjournment.

¶13

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶14

The applicant shall make his presence at the concerned police station on Monday in the first week of every month between 10-12 O' Clock till the conclusion of trial to show his bonafide and good conduct.

¶15

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be open to the prosecution to move application for cancellation of bail.

¶16

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶17

Order Date :- 14.9.2018 Naim

Rakesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Alias Ajay Pal Alias Pintoo Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Kranti Kumar Singh @ Biru Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Munda Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Singh Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Vs State of U.P.