Allowed

Yogendra Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 May 2019BAIL/42555/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a second bail application in a murder case (Goodman Hangings). The Court granted bail on bond with conditions and directed the trial court to expedite the trial under Section 309 Cr.P.C. to clear the pending trial file.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond with two sureties; trial court directed to decide case expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

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

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42555 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Yogendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 273 of 2015, under Sections 147, 302/34 I.P.C., P.S. Edaima, District Deoria. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order of this Court dated 16.2.2018 passed in crl. misc. bail application no. 39868 of 2015.

¶7

I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the first bail rejection order.

¶8

It is contended that even though it is correct to say that the applicant is the husband, nevertheless the fact remains that the cause of death of wife is hanging and as per postmortem report, there are no external injuries on the body of the deceased. It is lastly contended that the accused applicant is in jail since 20.5.2015 with no previous criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant .

¶10

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also in view of the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dataram v. State of U.P.; 2018 (3) SCC 22, 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.

¶11

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

¶12

Let the applicant Yogendra 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:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise

¶18

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 further 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

Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.

¶23

Order Date :- 10.5.2019 Kuldeep

Yogendra Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra 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

Meenu Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Patel Vs State of U.P.

Jasveer @ Jasvendra Vs State of U.P.

Iqbal Vs State of U.P.

Jahid Ali Vs State of U.P.

Shivesh Tripathi Vs State of U.P.