Allowed

Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 May 2018BAIL/17029/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh, J. allowed Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17029 of 2018 filed by Rajesh Yadav, observing that co-accused were enlarged on bail and the applicant's criminal history was properly explained, declaring it a fit case for bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount subject to standard conditions including appearance and non-interference.

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

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17029 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rajesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prakash Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Karunesh Pratap Singh, Advocate on behalf of complainant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against seven accused persons, namely Yogendra Yadav, Binay Yadav, Hemant Yadav, Rajesh Yadav, Rakesh Yadav, Satish Yadav, Pintu Yadav and 6-7 unknown persons alleging that on 26.11.2016 co-accused Yogendra Yadav, Binay Yadav, Hemant Yadav shot fire at Jaiprakash, he received two gunshot injuries, resultantly died.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that coaccused namely Satish Yadav, Shiv Shankar @ Mulayam Yadav, Chandradeep Yadav @ Sandeep and Raju Yadav have been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.12.2017 and 4.5.2017 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 49258 of 2017, 15742 of 2017 and 15739 of 2017, since the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no independent witness and no eye witness account against the applicant. Criminal history of the applicant has been properly explained. Main role of firing was assigned to co-accused Yogendra Yadav, Binay Yadav, Hemant Yadav. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present case. He is languishing in jail since 16.12.2016 (more than one year four months) and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that criminal history of the applicant has been properly explained and the case of present applicant is identical to co-accused Satish Yadav, Shiv Shankar @ Mulayam Yadav, Chandradeep Yadav @

¶11

Sandeep and Raju Yadav who has been enlarged on bail.

¶12

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 opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Rajesh Yadav involved in Session Trial No. 192 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 435 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 506/34, 201 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Jhangaha, District Gorakhpur 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:

¶14

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

¶15

2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

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

¶17

4.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.

¶18

5.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.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 8.5.2018 A. Singh

Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh 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

Imran Vs State of U.P.

Kapil Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Vimlesh Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Udal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Sakka Vs State of U.P.