Allowed

Avinash @ Guddu Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2019BAIL/41868/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted bail to the applicant in a murder case after the entire trial record was destroyed by fire, finding that a prima facie case for bail was made out due to the unique circumstances and length of detention, subject to standard conditions and an order for expedited trial.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions not tampering with witnesses or committing further offenses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41868 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Avinash @ Guddu Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yogendra Pati Tripathi,Amit Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned AGA for the State.

¶8

Applicant has moved the present fourth bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 41 of 2015 u/s 302 IPC PS Baluwa District Chandauli. The first, second and third bail applications were rejected by this Court vide orders dated 5.5.2017, 12.1.2018 and 18.9.2018 (for want of prosecution).

¶9

The fourth bail application is being pressed on the ground that it is a case of single blow and the applicant is in jail since 28.3.2016 with no criminal history. Further contention is that entire record of Sessions Trial No.183 of 2016 was destroyed on account of fire broken in the record room of Chandauli judgeship, as mentioned in para 2 of the supplementary affidavit dated 1.7.2019. Contention is that now de novo trial has begun and dates are fixed for framing of charge.

¶10

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant.

¶11

Looking to the period of detention and the fact that entire record of ST No.183 of 2016 was destroyed in judgeship concerned, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.

¶12

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶20

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

¶21

It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.

¶22

Order Date :- 19.7.2019 SP

Avinash @ Guddu Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avinash @ Guddu 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

Sanju Bedia @ Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Irfanuddin Vs State of U.P.

Umashankar Bind Vs State of U.P.

Azaruddin Vs State of U.P.

Sanju Vs State of U.P.

Hansraj Vs State of U.P.