Allowed

Munna Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2019BAIL/48205/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 48205 of 2018, Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J. considered the complaint by the learneds counsel for the applicant and found it a fit case for bail with conditions. The applicant was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in Crime No. 33 of 2018.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties under Sections 302, 34, 201 and 120-B I.P.C.

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

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48205 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Munna Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Priya Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant has been falsely implicated; that as per averments made in F.I.R. lodged by father of Prince deceased on 2.6.2018, his son Prince was living at the place of his Mama Kaushal Singh and on 25.5.2018 his Mama Kaushal Singh, Mami's nephew Mantu Singh, Nana Raj Narain Singh, Nani Sugeshwari Devi and applicant Munna Yadav in conspiracy with each other caused his death along with Km. Kajal daughter of Raj Kumar Singh and hidden their dead bodies near Ghogha bridge; that as per the prosecution case Prince and Kajal had developed relations on account of which poison was administered to them by accused persons whereafter their bodies were hidden near Ghogha bridge after taking by tempo, driven by applicant Munna Yadav; that applicant had no concern with deceased Prince or Kajal or co-accused persons and he has not been assigned any role in administering poison to any of them; that it is wrong to say that applicant taken the dead bodies of Prince deceased or Kajal by his tempo at the instructions of co-accused persons or hidden the same near Ghogha bridge; that in any case role assigned to applicant is only under Section 201 I.P.C and not under Section 302 I.P.C.; that case of applicant is distinguishable from other co-accused persons; that in another case crime no.29 of 2018 relating to murder of Kajal, with similar fact applicant has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 7.12.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.46711 of 2018, copy produced for perusal and taken on record; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since

¶7

31.05.2018.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail.

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Munna Yadav be released on bail in Case Crime No.33 of 2018, S.T. No.201 of 2018 under Sections 302, 34, 201 and 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Dubhar, District Ballia, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶12

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶14

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶15

Order Date :- 11.1.2019

¶16

Munna Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna 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

Raju Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Saurabh Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Ram @ Tillan @ Dhillan Vs State of U.P.

Veeru @ Virendra Gangwar Vs State of U.P.

Tapasya @ Tabassum Vs State of U.P.