Allowed

Kedar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Mar 2019BAIL/12863/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed the criminal bail application filed by Kedar Yadav, an accused in a murder and affray case. The court found the case a fit case for bail, granting release on personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions such as not tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions.

Kedar Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12863 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Kedar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hemant Kumar Srivastava,Prem Prakash Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against nine accused persons, namely, Ramsewak Yadav, Rameshwar Yadav, Ajit Yadav, Govinda Yadav, Dhananjay Yadav, Kedar Yadav, Indrasani Devi, Geeta Devi, Anju Yadav and some unknown persons alleging that on 30.11.2018 at 8:00 a.m. they assaulted Sandeep and Balmati and Balmati, so called injured eye witness, had specifically stated that co-accused Rameshwar had shot fired on Sandeep. He received one gun shot injury on chest and lacerated wound on head and died.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 1.12.2018 (about four months) one case of criminal history has been explained. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Except Rameshwar, general role has been assigned to all other accused persons named in the F.I.R. Only one gun shot injury was found on the body of the deceased. There is no recovery at the pointing out of the applicant. There is no independent witness against the applicant and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

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.

¶10

Let the applicant Kedar Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 298 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 352, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Haldharpur, District-Mau 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

¶11

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 :- 29.3.2019 OP

Kedar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kedar 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

Sanjay Khan Vs State of U.P.

Omwati Vs State of U.P.

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

Rajveer Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Dhanesara Vs State of U.P.

Abhimanyu Kashyap Vs State of U.P.