Allowed

Abhimannu Yadav @ Monu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 May 2019BAIL/18963/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a bail application for an applicant accused in a murder case. The applicant, with no prior criminal history, alleged false implication and lack of identification. The Court observed that while the application did not dispute facts, the applicant made out a case for bail given the circumstances and custody period.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18963 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Abhimannu Yadav @ Monu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sudist Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Sudhist, learned counsel on behalf of first informant is taken on record.

¶6

This case has been transferred to this Court by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice vide order dated 3.5.2019.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as Sri Hari Pratap Gupta, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged against three persons namely, Shailendra Yadav, Guddu Yadav, Lallu Yadav and two unknown riding on motorcycle alleging that on 16.1.2019 Bal Govind Singh(husband of complainant) was shot dead by them. During investigation, names of Ramesh, Lalu Yadav, Ghanshyam Gupta, Harikesh, Abhimannu Yadav, Pradeep Yadav, Rakesh Yadav @ Keshari and Guddu Yadav were surfaced alleging that they were also indulged in the crime. Complainant specifically stated in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that Lalu Yadav and Harikesh opened fire at deceased.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 20.1.2019(about four months) having no criminal history. He has been falsely implicated. He was not named in the FIR. Mobile phone and motorcycle were falsely shown to have recovered from the possession of applicant. Specific role of firing was assigned to Lalu Yadav and Harikesh. Name of applicant was disclosed after five days of incident after thought with legal consultation, due to enmity. No identification parade was conducted. There is no independent witness. Case of applicant is distinguishable from co-accused Lalu Yadav and Harikesh. Deceased received only one gunshot injury. In case applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant. He admitted that the applicant has no

¶11

criminal history.

¶12

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation, period of custody, gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let applicant Abhimannu Yadav involved in Case Crime No.14 of 2019, under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 506, 507 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Sarai Lakhansi, 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 following conditions:

¶14

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

¶15

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 6.5.2019 P.P.

Abhimannu Yadav @ Monu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhimannu Yadav @ Monu 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

Chndra Pal and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahnoor Vs State of U.P.

Vinju Modanwal and Another Vs State of U.P.

State of U.P. Vs Har Prasad and Others

Smt. Malti Vs State of U.P.

Ranjeet Kumar @ Banti Vs State of U.P.