Allowed

Pramod Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2018CRLA/5297/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in criminal appeal allows the bail of appellants. The High Court set aside the impugned order rejecting bail and directed release on bond, citing parity with a co-accused and lack of criminal history without opining on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting bail set aside. Appellants released on bail furnishing personal bond and two sureties each.

Pramod Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5297 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Pramod Yadav And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Hiralal

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Order in memo of Crl.Appeal

¶6

The appeal is admitted.

¶7

Crl. Misc.Bail Appln. No.01 of 2018

¶8

Vide office report dated 23.10.2018, notice has been served on the opposite party no.2 through CJM Chandauli.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Hira Lal, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A and perused the record.

¶10

This criminal appeal has been filed against order dated 11.09.2018 passed by IInd Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Chadauli, in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.120 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.100 of 2018, under sections 147, 148, 452, 308, 323, 325, 336, 504, 427 IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(10(s) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Balua, District Chandauli, whereby bail application of the appellants was rejected.

¶11

According to the prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged on 06.05.2018 against accused namely Ramesh Yadav, Pramod Yadav, Gulzar, Sunny Yadav, Mahendra Yadav, Bullu Yadav, Dilip Yadav and Achey Yadav alleging that due to some political disputes they assaulted Manish Kumar, Kamlesh, Sudama, Ram Prasad. Rama Prasad received head injury caused by one Ramesh Yadav. On the hand of Ram Prasad, fracture was found and metacarpal bone of Kamlesh was also found fractured and other injuries are found simple in nature.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that co-accused Ramesh Yadav has been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 8.8.2018 in Criminal Appeal No.3321 of 2018, since the role of the appellants is not distinguishable with the role of co-accused, therefore, the appellants are also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. They have been falsely implicated. Except injuries of Ram Prasad and Kamlesh, other injuries are found simple in nature. Except one injury general role has been assigned to other co-accused. They are languishing in jail since 11.09.2018 (more than one month) having no criminal history and if he is enlarged on bail, he will not abscond or tamper with the evidence.

¶13

Learned AGA and Sri Sri Hira Lal, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the prayer for bail but admitted that the appellant has no criminal history.

¶14

For the foregoing discussions, 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 appellants have made out a case for bail. The appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 11.09.2018 rejecting the bail of the appellants is hereby set aside.

¶15

Let the applicants, Pramod Yadav, Shani Yadav & Dileep Yadav involved in Case Crime No.100 of 2018, under sections 147, 148, 452, 308, 323, 325, 336, 504, 427 IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(10(s) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Balua, District Chandauli, District Shahjahanpur, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶16

(i). The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

(ii). The applicants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

(iii). The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

(iv) The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶20

(v) The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 23.10.2018 SKD

Pramod Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Monaf Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gajju Singh Gajraj Vs State of U.P.

Praveen Vs State of U.P.

Ramji Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Nasir and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devendra Kumar Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another