Allowed

Yogesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Nov 2019BAIL/36930/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application challenging false implication in a murder case under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The court noted the application of the only physical evidence was false and directed the trial court to expedite proceedings under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant to be released on bail by providing a personal bond, two reliable sureties, and filing an undertaking.

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

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36930 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Yogesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pushpendra Singh,Abhitosh Mishra,Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by State is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

Accused-applicant, involved in Case Crime No. 786 of 2018, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr, applied for bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent; he is not named in F.I.R. and has been falsely implicated in the present case; he has committed no offence; prosecution story is false and fake. It has further been submitted that the incident has taken place on 25.6.2018 and the F.I.R. has been lodged on 26.6.2018 in the morning against unknown person but the name of applicant came into light in the statement of witness Sunder, who has seen the accused going behind the victim Veer Singh; recovery of rope shown by police is false and fake. No public witness is at the time of recovery. There is no eye witness of the incident. As per post mortem report deceased died due to strangulation. He further submitted that due to confessional statement of accused before police, applicant has been implicated in the present case. Applicant is in jail since 29.6.2018. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant's fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but did not dispute the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that accused was seen going behind the deceased and thereafter, victim was found dead. Recovery of rope allegedly used in the commission of crime was made by police at the pointing out of accused but admitted that no other evidence against the applicant except statement of witness

¶10

Sunder.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rival contention of learned counsel for the parties, detention of applicant in jail, severity of punishment in case of conviction, evidence collected by I.O. during investigation and without commenting upon the merit of the case, applicant deserves bail.

¶12

Accordingly, bail application is allowed .

¶13

Let applicant Yogesh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties and filing an undertaking to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶14

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶15

The applicant shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for charge, evidence when the witnesses are present in the court, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and argument.

¶16

During trial, he shall not indulge in any criminal activities or case.

¶17

In breach of any condition enumerated above, Trial Court shall be at liberty to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶18

However, it is provided that Trial Court shall proceed the trial in view of Section 309 Cr.P.C., expedite and conclude the trial within one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournment, if there is no legal impediment. In case, trial is not decided in the stipulated time, Trial Court shall inform this Court explaining entire circumstances and seek further time, otherwise it shall be treated as disobedience of the order of this Court.

¶19

Order Date :- 5.11.2019 Manoj

Yogesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Shamshad Vs State of U.P.

Irshad Vs State of U.P.

Salman Banjara Vs State of U.P.

Adesh Vs State of U.P.

Chaman Diwaker @ Pintu Vs State of U.P.