Allowed

Sushil Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2018CRLA/2536/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal against a bail rejection order. It set aside the impugned order, finding that the accused is entitled to bail, and released him on bail with personal and two sureties bonds subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and order dated 24.04.2018 set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties each.

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

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2536 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Sushil Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

As indicated in the annexure-CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A., notice has been served personally through concerned police station on respondent No.02, yet no one has appeared on his behalf to oppose the bail prayer in the instant appeal.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This appeal has been filed against judgement and order dated 24.04.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Ballia passed in Bail Application No. 357 of 2018 (Sushil Yadav Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 46of 2018, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Bairia, District- Ballia, by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that order of the learned court below rejecting bail application of applicant-appellant is bad in law. It is submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated with an ulterior motive and expeditious considerations. As per the prosecution, the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 03.03.2018 at 9 A.M. and F.I.R. was lodged after six days on 09.03.2018. In the F.I.R., the prosecutrix aged about 27 years has specifically stated that appellant had beaten her badly on account of which she sustained injury on her hand and she also became unconscious. However, in the medical examination no external or internal injury was noted by the doctor. It is argued that the prosecution version of rape is not supported by medical evidence and it appears that in order to claim compensation from the government as the prosecutrix belongs to Scheduled Caste false case has been fastened on the appellant. Appellant is languishing in jail since 09.03.2018. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that learned court below has also failed to consider that appellant has no criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the appellant.

¶10

Having heard the submission of learned counsel of both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of the appellant and nature of accusation against appellant and evidence in support of it and unlikelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, I

¶11

find that a case for bail has been made out.

¶12

In the result, appeal is allowed. The judgement and order dated 24.04.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Ballia is set aside.

¶13

Let appellant-applicant- Sushil Yadav, be released on bail in aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant-appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶15

(ii) The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

(iii) The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 2.8.2018 Vikas/-

Sushil Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahrukh Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Kumar Singh @ Sanjeev Singh Vs State of U.P.

Appu Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Irtza Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P.