Allowed

Ashok Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Sept 2018BAIL/25916/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to Ashok Yadav in a case involving Section 307 IPC. It did not pass on the merits of the case but relied on constitutional principles of Article 21 and a Supreme Court precedent while releasing the applicant on bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Ashok Yadav on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of Rs. one lac each subject to specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25916 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ashok Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Chowdhury Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajiv Chowdhury, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that even though the accusedapplicant has been named in the F.I.R. but no specific role has been assigned to him. Two persons have been assigned role of causing injury. There is only one fire arm injury on the body of the injured. However, it is not clear that whose shot caused the said injury. No incriminating article or material has been recovered either from the applicant or on his pointing out. The recovery which is said to have been recovered from the applicant was planted one and there is no independent/public witness of the alleged recovery. He also submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the court. Further submission is that applicant who is in jail since 22.1.2018 has no other criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant also undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is also a criminal history against the applicant and hence, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶8

In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he has explained the criminal history in paragraph 8 of the rejoinder affidavit.

¶9

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any view on the

¶10

merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶11

Let the applicant Ashok Yadav be released on bail in Case Crime No. 51 of 2018, under Section 307 I.P.C., P.S. Lanka, district-Varanasi on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of Rs. one lac each (one should be of his family member) in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trail and remain present personally on each and every date fixed after release. (ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶14

Order Date :- 14.9.2018 Faridul

Ashok Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radheyshyam Vs State of U.P.

Nazeer Ahmad Alias Raju Vs State of U.P.

Gopal Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Jonny @ Aditya Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Irfan Vs State of U.P.