Allowed

Pintoo Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Sept 2019BAIL/38313/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to the applicant Pintoo Yadav in a theft case. The court relied on the bail granted to co-accused, noted the triability by a Magistrate, and found it a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties subject to conditions regarding tampering, threatening witnesses, appearance, and non-re-offending.

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

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38313 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Pintoo Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mithilesh Kumar Gupta 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 Pintoo Yadav in connection with Case Crime No.181 of 2019, under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Cholapur, District Varanasi.

¶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 previous criminal history of the applicant has been satisfactorily explained in paragraph no.15 of the bail application. He submitted that the coaccused have been admitted to the concession of bail by this Court by orders dated 09.09.2019 and 11.09.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.35662 of 2019 (Jitendra Yadav @ Monu Yadav) and 34723 of 2019 (Mritunjay Kushwaha), copy whereof have been annexed on page nos.22 and 23 of the bail application. 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 02.07.2019 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 aforesaid co-accused have 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 Pintoo 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 to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

Order Date :- 30.9.2019

¶18

R./

Pintoo Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintoo 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.

Akshya Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Istakar Vs State of U.P.