Allowed

Kamta Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 May 2018CRLA/582/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal against an order rejecting bail under Section 302 IPC and the S.C./S.T. Act. Setting aside the impugned order, the Court granted conditional bail to the appellant Kamta Yadav, noting he had constituted a case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to appellant Kamta Yadav by ordering the release of him on a personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to conditions.

Kamta Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 582 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Kamta Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Devesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

The present Criminal Appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.01.2018 passed by Learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Hamirpur in Case Crime No. 267 of 2017, under Section 302 I.P.C. and 3(2)5 of S.C/S.T. Act, Police Station Kurara, District Hamirpur whereby bail application was rejected.

¶8

According to prosecution case, one dead body of Maiyadeen was fond on 28.09.2017, subsequently the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons; after two days of the incident i.e. on 30.09.2017, the statement of the complainant was recorded in which he stated that Mahendra Yadav and Kamta Yadav have killed the deceased; this accused Kamta Yadav was present at the place of incident and Mahendra Yadav has assaulted the deceased with danda, resultantly died; he also stated that there are two witnesses Kaushal Singh and Ghanshyam who have seen the said incident.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case; there is no legal evidence against the applicant; there is no eye-witness account/independent witness against the appellant; the witnesses who were present at the time of incident have nothing stated against the appellant; in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial; he is languishing in jail since 03.10.2017 (more than seven months); one case criminal history of Gangster has been explained.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer for bail but admitted that criminal history against appellant has been explained.

¶11

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 appellant has made out a case for bail. The appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 10.01.2018 rejecting bail of appellant is hereby set aside.

¶12

Let the appellant/applicant Kamta Yadav be released involved in Case Crime No. 267 of 2017, under Section 302 I.P.C. and 3(2)5 of S.C/S.T. Act, Police Station Kurara, District Hamirpur on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

i) The appellant/applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶14

ii) The appellant/applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶15

iii) The appellant/applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶16

iv) The appellant/applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the appellant/applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which appellant/applicant is suspected.

¶17

v) The appellant/applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 18.5.2018

¶20

A. Tripathi

Kamta Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamta Yadav 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Thakur Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shanti Devi Vs State of U.P.

Vijendra Vs State of U.P.

Yaseen Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Bhagwandas Lodhi Vs State of U.P.