Allowed

Yashpal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2019BAIL/45053/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to applicant Yashpal in murder case after noting previous rejection, stating prima facie case made out without prejudicing trial, while imposing strict conditions and directing trial court to proceed under Section 309 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with two sureties under personal bond with strict conditions including no tampering, no witness harassment, and appearance during trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45053 of 2018 Applicant :- Yashpal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Narayan Tiwari,Sri V.M. Zaidi Senior Advovate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Sharma,Atul Sharma

¶2

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶3

Heard Sri V. M. Zaidi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Prem Narayan Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D.V. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Atul Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Satish Kumar Singh, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.

¶4

This bail application moved on behalf of applicant Yashpal, praying to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.378 of 2016, under Sections 302, 120-B, IPC, Police Station Malpura, District Agra.

¶5

This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 26.07.2018 at that stage.

¶6

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner in the second bail application that subsequent to rejection of first bail application of the applicant the doctor has been examined as P.W.-3. We have perused the said statement of the doctor, contents of which is self explicit. We have also perused the statement of the investigating officer, who has been examined has P.W.-3, contents of which is self explicit. The applicant is in jail since 10.07.2016 with no previous criminal history.

¶7

Sri D. V. Singh, learned Senior Counsel express his apprehension that if the Court says anything more in the order, it might be effected the trial. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the applicant is in jail since 10.07.2016 with no previous criminal history, a facts which has not been disputed by the counsel for the complainant, 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.

¶8

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

¶9

Let the applicant Yashpal 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:

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

The applicant will appears on each and every date whatsoever, before the trial court concerned. The trial court concerned is also directed, not to grant any adjournment to the applicant until and unless there are some exceptional circumstances for which the reasons shall be given by the applicant in writing.

¶17

The trial court concerned will proceed strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of the principle as has been laid down in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Panjab .

¶18

Order Date :- 5.4.2019/VKG

Yashpal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashpal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitesh Chandra @ Pawan Vs State of U.P.

Amir Asrar @ Akku Vs State of U.P.

Kaushal Vs State of U.P.

Satya Narayan @ Hemant Vs State of U.P.

Suresh Vs State of U.P.

Hazi Aleem Vs State of U.P.