Allowed

Akshya Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Sept 2019BAIL/23729/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application filed by Akshya Yadav in a cheating case under Sections 420 and 34 IPC, the High Court allowed the plea. Citing parity with a co-accused who had already been granted bail and considering the nature of allegations, the Court found it a fit case for bail, releasing the applicant on personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed; applicant released on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties.

Akshya Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23729 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Akshya Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Akshya Yadav in connection with Case Crime No.356 of 2019, under Sections 420, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Surajpur, District Gautam Buddha Nagar. Pushp

¶7

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with the ulterior motive. He submitted that the coaccused Pushp Raj has been admitted to the concession of bail by this Court by order dated 22.07.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.26769 of 2019. He claims parity. He submitted that all the offences are triable by the court of Magistrate. He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.04.2019 and in case, he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail plea. However, learned A.G.A. does not dispute the factum of parity.

¶9

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused and also the fact that the co-accused Pushp Raj has been admitted to the concession of bail by this Court, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶10

Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Akshya Yadav involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

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

¶13

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses;

¶14

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶15

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

¶16

v) 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 such person from disclosing facts

¶17

to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. Order Date :- 30.9.2019

¶18

R./

Akshya Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshya 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

Girja Shankar Rai Vs State of U.P.

Suresh Singh Banaphar Vs State of U.P.

Pooja Vs State of U.P.

Satyaveer Vs State of U.P.

Istakar Vs State of U.P.

Pintoo Yadav Vs State of U.P.