Allowed

Dinesh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2019BAIL/5453/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J. granted bail to Dinesh Yadav in a criminal case involving murder and affray. The court observed that it was a fit case for bail without commenting on the merits of the case, despite opposing counsel's objections.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of appearing in court and not tampering with evidence.

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

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5453 of 2019 Applicant :- Dinesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused record.

¶5

Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant has been falsely implicated in F.I.R. dated 12.8.2018; that as per averments made in F.I.R. on 12.8.2018 at 4:00 p.m. when first informant and his associates were going by their vehicle applicant and six others armed with lathi-danda and deadly weapons surrounded vehicle and started beating them indiscriminately resulting in injuries to Gaurav, Priyansh and Raghvendra Pratap Singh who fell unconscious due to injuries sustained by him; that subsequently on death of Raghvendra Pratap Singh in this case offence under Section 302 I.P.C. was added; that injury reports of three injured on prosecution side Abhishek Singh, Govind Singh and Gaurav at Annexure Nos.4 & 5 do not show any grievous injury on vital part of body of any of them, which may be considered to be dangerous to their lives; that post-mortem report of deceased Raghvendra Pratap Singh dated 16.8.2018 states that his death did take place as a result of ante-mortem injuries at 8:28 a.m. on 16.8.2018 and ante-mortem injuries mentioned in post-mortem report shows single stitched wound over parital temporal region apart from trachea stony wound in front of neck and one contusion and one abrasion; that additional statement of first informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. followed by similar statements of injured witnesses, state that during incident Ram Bachan, Bablu, Gulab and Sailesh were also amongst assailants whose names are not mentioned in F.I.R.; that entire prosecution story is absolutely false, incorrect and highly improbable in view of fact that as many as 11 persons armed with deadly weapons allegedly committed indiscriminate mar-peet and deceased sustained solitary head injury and other three injured persons also sustained simple injuries; that applicant may not be considered to be author of solitary fatal injury of deceased; that applicant is not a previous convict; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 13.8.2018.

¶6

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

¶7

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, 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.

¶8

Let the applicant Dinesh Yadav be released on bail in Case Crime No.0084 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 302, 307, 323, 506, 427, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Khanpur, District Ghazipur, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶9

(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.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

Order Date :- 8.2.2019 Kpy

Dinesh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indal Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash @ Lalla Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Vs State of U.P.

Khalid Khan Vs State of U.P.

Lalu Vs State of U.P.

Babloo Vs State of U.P.