Allowed

Ajay Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2019BAIL/13692/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to the applicant, Ajay Yadav, charged with murder under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The Court observed that a co-accused with an identical role was already released on bail, noted the lack of evidence against the applicant, and found him entitled to bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding tampering with evidence, witnessing, and appearance.

Ajay Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13692 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ajay Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kumar Ashutosh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri P.K. Rai, learned brief holder for the State and perused the record.

¶6

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against five accused persons alleging that on 1.5.2018 they killed Imran (brother of complainant). During investigation, it was found that name of Julfikar, Tirath Sahani, Jaggan Chauhan and Ajay Yadav was surfaced and it was found that Tirath Sahani killed the deceased with the help of other accused and blood stained ' pana' was recovered on the pointing out of co-accused Jaggan Chauhan.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that coaccused namely Julphekar has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.10.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38244 of 2018, since the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. Applicant was the servant of Tirath Sahani, doing labour work in his cement factory due to which he has been falsely implicated. Name of named accused was exonerated. There is no independent witness and no legal evidence against the applicant. Applicant was not named in the F.I.R. During investigation, the name of applicant was surfaced. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present case. He is languishing in jail since 10.5.2018 (near about eleven months) having no criminal history 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 and admitted that applicant has no criminal history and the case of present applicant is identical to coaccused Julphekar who has been enlarged on bail.

¶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 applicant Ajay Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 163 of 2018, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Chiluwatal, District Gorakhpur 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 following conditions:

¶11

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶12

2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶13

3.The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 3.4.2019 A. Singh

Ajay Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay 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

monu Vs State of U.P.

Kripashankar Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Vs State of U.P.

Ashish @ Shobhi Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Chandra Prakash @ Chandu Vs State of U.P.

Sarvesh Vs State of U.P.