Allowed

Yogesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 May 2018BAIL/11448/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was disposed of by allowing the applicant's release on bail. The court held that the applicant, having no criminal history and languishing in custody for over six months amidst conflicting prosecution statements, had made out a case for bail despite the gravity of the charges.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Yogesh on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to standard conditions.

Yogesh Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11448 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Yogesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Singh Parmar,Ashwini Kumar Awasthi,Manish Tiwary,Pawan Singh Pundir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amar Singh Yadav,Shashi Kant Pandey,Surya Nath Bhatt

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant,Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA for the State, and perused the record.

¶7

According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged on 10.6.2017 against Yogesh, Pooran, Tilloo, Nabbi, Pappu and Prempal alleging that they shot fire at Nekse. He received one firearm injury and died resultantly. In the FIR, specific role has been assigned to Yogesh. Bhoorey, father-in-law of deceased Nekse was present at the time of incident and on 12.9.2017 stated under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that he could not see that Yogesh shot fire at Nekse and Yogesh was not armed with firearm at the time of incident. He also stated that both parties shot fire.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is languishing in jail since 23.11.2017(more than six months) having no criminal history. General role has been assigned to all the accused. All accused except this accused have been enlarged on bail. There is no independent witness. Incident is of 22:30 (night). In case applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.He admitted that the applicant has no criminal history

¶10

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let applicant Yogesh involved in Case Crime No.408 of 2017, under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 IPC, Police Station

¶12

Gunnaur, District Bheemnagar be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶13

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶14

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶15

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶16

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶17

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.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶19

Order Date :- 28.5.2018

¶20

P.P.

Yogesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh 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

Kaliyan Vs State of U.P.

Vikram Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sunil Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Munesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Vs State of U.P.