Allowed

Virendra Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2019BAIL/16046/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant charged under Section 409 IPC for misappropriation of an A.K. 47 rifle. Bail was subject to a personal bond and two local sureties, with specific conditions regarding court attendance and consequences of default under IPC and Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties of like amount subject to conditions.

Virendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16046 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Virendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mangla Prasad Rai,Rajiv Lochan Shukla,O0057 Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State as well as supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today are taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri P.K. Shahi, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the material on record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Virendra Yadav with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 12 of 2019, under Section 409 I.P.C., Police Station-Itwa, District-Siddhartha Nagar, during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number. As per the first information report, on 02.02.2019 at 5.30 P.M. co-accused Anil Prakash Pandey being incharge of Police Station Siddarth Nagar had made a departure in Government Jeep with A.K. 47 rifle along with 20 rounds cartridges and after return at police station above A.K. 47 rifle was got deposited in Maalkhana through Constable Vimal Kishor Mishra, but alleged A.K. 47 rifle along with cartridges had gone missing, hence it was a misappropriation by those police personnel of police station concerned named in the first information report, whereas accused-applicant being only the in-charge of the Maalkhana, where the A.K. 47 rifle and 20 cartridges were deposited, was neither the person in whose name rifle was issued from police station concerned nor he had any concern with it, rather G.D. entry of police station made by S.O. filed on record is of this fact that the same was deposited at Maalkhana of police station concerned and it was misappropriated from Maalkhana. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant the allegation of taking away the A.K. 47 rifle has been made against the co-accused Anil Prakash Pandey along with him, whereas the allegation of taking away ten cartridges out of 20 has been made against the coaccused Vimal Kishor Mishra along with him. The applicant being the in-charge of the Maalkhana has been falsely implicated in the present case due to suspicion only. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the co-accused, namely, Anil Kumar Pandey and Vimal Kishor Mishra have already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 24th April, 2019 and 3rd May, 2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 17179 of 2019 and 18886 of 2019 respectively. The other two co-accused, namely, Vipin Kumar Bhatt

¶9

and Ram Pratap Singh have also been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders 28th May, 2019 and 31st May, 2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 22228 of 2019 and 23088 of 2019 respectively. The case of the present applicant is on better footing to that of the co-accused Anil Kumar Pandey and Vimal Kishor Mishra and similar and identical to that of the co-accused Vipin Kumar Bhatt and Ram Pratap Singh. As such the present applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 5th February, 2018. As such the applicant has undergone more than seven months of incarceration.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

Considering the material/evidence brought on record, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶13

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to

¶16

treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶17

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 11.9.2019

¶19

Sushil/-

Virendra Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jog Raj Vs State of U.P.

Ashok @ Pappu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Firoz Ansari Vs State of U.P.

Ram Kailash Vs State of U.P.

Jaheer Vs State of U.P.

Sahab Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.