Allowed

Surendra Yadav Alias Mulayam Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2018BAIL/18816/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail to the applicant under IPC Sections 272, 273, 284, 304, 328, 120-B in a poisoning case. Granting bail as co-accused had been released on similar bail and applicant had explained criminal history and posed no flight risk.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties in like amount on conditions specified in paragraph 12.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18816 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Surendra Yadav Alias Mulayam Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Yadav,Shiva Kant Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

According to the prosecution case the F.I.R. was lodged against two accused persons, namely, Ramkewal and Vikram alleging that on 08.07.2017 the deceased Pramod Sharma was died by drinking wine supplied by these accused; during investigation it was found that Ganika Yadav, Subhash Yadav and Surendra Yadav were also indulged in this crime.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that coaccused namely Ram Kewal, Vikram and Ganika Yadav have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2017 and in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 48520 of 2018 and 16451 of 2018, 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. His death was an accidental, unintentional and without knowledge of accused. There is no chemical examination report to show that recovered wine was adulterated. Offences under Sections 272 and 273 IPC are not made out against the applicant. Criminal history of 20 cases has been properly explained and 15 cases has been roped after this incident. There is no possibility to get this case decided in short period in future. There is no independent witness against the applicant. He is languishing in jail since 15.7.2017 (more than one year and four and half months) and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶9

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 has been explained.

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

¶11

Let the applicant Surendra Yadav Alias Mulayam Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 183 of 2017, under Sections 272, 273, 284, 304, 328, 120-B IPC, Police Station Jiyanpur, District Azamgarh 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:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 29.11.2018 A. Singh

Surendra Yadav Alias Mulayam Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Yadav Alias Mulayam 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

Deepak Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Dharmsheela Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Fulwa Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Nandan Vs State of U.P.

Raju Vs State of U.P.

Faisal Khan and Another Vs State of U.P.